design value at the neighbourhood scale - cache · neighbourhood design beyond the converted....

R2018_04_01

Final Report

Design value at the neighbourhood scale

What does it mean and how do we measure it?

Dr Bilge Serin (University of Glasgow), Tom Kenny (Royal Town

Planning Institute), Dr James White (University of Glasgow),

Professor Flora Samuel (University of Reading)

19 November 2018

1 Design value at the neighbourhood scale

About the author(s)

Dr Bilge Serin is a Research Associate at the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence

and is based in the University of Glasgow.

Tom Kenny is a Policy Officer at the Royal Town Planning Institute. He is a Co-Investigator at

the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence.

Dr James White is Lecturer in Urban Design at the University of Glasgow. He is a Co-

Investigator at the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence.

Professor Flora Samuel is Professor of Architecture in the Built Environment at the University

of Reading and RIBA Vice President for Research. She leads the Place theme for the UK

Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the ESRC, AHRC and Joseph Rowntree Foundation for financial support

through the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence. We are also grateful for the

feedback of all those who attended the ‘Design Value’ Roundtable in March 2018 and the

‘Design Value’ Workshop in October 2018.


Contents

Executive summary.................................................................................................................... 6

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 9

Why is design value important? ................................................................................. 9

Research aim ............................................................................................................. 9

Methodology............................................................................................................. 10

1.3.1. Scope of the review ......................................................................................... 10

1.3.2. Sources reviewed ............................................................................................ 12

1.3.3. Key steps in the review process ...................................................................... 12

Report outline ........................................................................................................... 14

2. What is design value? ...................................................................................................... 14

A note on terminology .............................................................................................. 14

Why design is valued ............................................................................................... 15

Value in the design process .................................................................................... 17

Value(s) found in design products/outcomes .......................................................... 18

Section summary ..................................................................................................... 19

3. Types of design value....................................................................................................... 20

Typologies of design value ...................................................................................... 20

Triple bottom line of social, environmental and economic value ............................ 21

3.2.1. Social value ...................................................................................................... 21

3.2.2. Environmental value ........................................................................................ 23


3.2.3. Economic value ................................................................................................ 24

Other commonly identified types of value ............................................................... 25

Section summary ..................................................................................................... 25

4. The challenge of defining design value ............................................................................ 26

Design value and subjectivity .................................................................................. 27

Design value and the user experience .................................................................... 28

Design value and the challenge of scope and scale ............................................... 29

Section summary ..................................................................................................... 30

5. Metrics used to assess design value ............................................................................... 31

Building for Life 12 design value metrics ................................................................. 31

Hierarchies of value ................................................................................................. 33

Section summary ..................................................................................................... 33

6. Measuring design value ................................................................................................... 34

Methods of measurement ........................................................................................ 34

6.1.1. Measuring economic value .............................................................................. 34

6.1.2. Measuring social value .................................................................................... 35

6.1.3. Measuring environmental value ....................................................................... 35

6.1.4. Post occupancy evaluation .............................................................................. 36

6.1.5. Official monitoring ............................................................................................ 37

6.1.6. Post-completion design review ........................................................................ 37

6.1.7. Other industry tools .......................................................................................... 38

6.1.8. Ad-hoc evaluation ............................................................................................ 39


The measurement challenge ................................................................................... 39

A call for more evidence .......................................................................................... 40

Section Summary ..................................................................................................... 41

7. Promoting design value .................................................................................................... 41

Design value in government policy and guidance ................................................... 42

7.1.1. National policy .................................................................................................. 43

7.1.2. Local planning .................................................................................................. 44

7.1.3. Planning guidance ........................................................................................... 44

7.1.4. Standards ......................................................................................................... 45

7.1.5. Other tools used to inform policy and guidance .............................................. 46

Where to promote design value in practice ............................................................. 46

7.2.1. Involving well-qualified professionals and providing training .......................... 46

7.2.2. Promoting proper community participation ...................................................... 47

7.2.3. Influencing public procurement ........................................................................ 47

7.2.4. Early design stage ........................................................................................... 48

7.2.5. Planning application stage ............................................................................... 48

7.2.6. Build stage ....................................................................................................... 48

7.2.7. Monitoring and assessment after completion .................................................. 48

Section summary ..................................................................................................... 49

8. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 49

A working definition of design value? ...................................................................... 49

Developing an accessible evidence base on design value ..................................... 50


9. References in report ......................................................................................................... 52

10. Appendix 1 – List of academic publications (journal articles and book chapters) ...... 60

11. Appendix 2 – Grey literature reviewed ........................................................................ 63

12. Appendix 3 – Search strategy ..................................................................................... 68

Grey literature websites: .......................................................................................... 68

Reviewed journals.................................................................................................... 69

Search protocol ........................................................................................................ 69

Inclusion-exclusion criteria....................................................................................... 70


Executive summary

Creating well-designed neighbourhoods is widely accepted as an important policy objective

across the different national governments in the UK. National policies tend to agree that a

well-designed neighbourhood typically has a permeable and legible street network, integrates

mixed use and mixed tenure development, encourages community, offers access to high

quality open space, and promotes walking and other modes of active travel, while also

achieving a level of architectural distinctiveness and thus a robust sense of place.

However, in spite of the positive policy rhetoric, design is often undervalued in the wider

planning, procurement and development process. In the wider built environment community

and literature around it there is limited agreement on what constitutes good design, how the

value of design is defined and categorised, and what should be prioritised in decision-making

and procurement. There is also a lack of evidence collected on good design and its impacts.

This can make it hard to discuss the value of design in the context of the many other values

that shape new places, and it is often an uphill battle to promote the value of good

neighbourhood design beyond the converted. Unsurprisingly design outcomes on new

housing developments are often poor and fail to live up to the aspirations of UK policy and

guidance.

This interdisciplinary review of UK-based academic refereed literature, grey literature and

policy documents relating to the design value at the neighbourhood scale sets out the current

state of knowledge in this area.

What is design value?

Design value is a broad concept which overlaps with numerous related terms. While there is

consensus that good design adds value to homes and neighbourhoods, there is less

agreement about what values are most important in the design process and the delivery of

new neighbourhoods.

Design value is experienced from a variety of perspectives. It is at least in part subjective,

which means in order to enable design value to take its place alongside other forms of

evidence, a range of robust qualitative and quantitative data is needed. The evidence also

suggests that the experiences of people living in new homes and neighbourhoods must be

central to any definition of design value.


In order to provide clarity on the outcomes of design, design value can be disaggregated into

a series of value types. Three commonly used value types are social, environmental and

economic. Although there is considerable overlap between them and a tendency in the

literature to emphasise the economic value of design, they provide a useful organising

structure for discussions of design value.

Value can be delivered through the design process, for example by architects and planners

working with communities, or by developers managing a procurement and development

process. Design value can be measured in the long- or the short-term.

Design value is discussed in the literature at a range of scales, but there are several good

reasons to focus on the neighbourhood scale. A neighbourhood focus goes beyond the narrow

strictures of a building or site, but also limits the focus to an area which can be influenced by

the design of individual sites. However, other scales of evaluation are needed that evaluate

the impact of a neighbourhood on wider urban systems and regional dynamics.

Measuring and promoting design value

Market valuation is a broadly applied economic methodology, but better measures of social

and environmental value are needed to assist with the production of robust economic models.

There are some existing and emerging methods for measuring social and environmental

value, but these do not appear to be widely used. There is also currently limited data on the

social and environmental value of new neighbourhoods. A paucity of ‘post-occupancy

evaluation’ across the housing sector means that we have very little information on what users

value in new neighbourhoods.

To influence design outcomes at the neighbourhood scale it is crucial to understand the

different actors and processes involved. Key decision-makers include national policymakers,

local government officers and councillors, national and local design bodies and consultancies,

and the development industry. Central and local government policy and guidance is a key way

in which design value can influence practice. Design value can also be promoted through: the

effective deployment of design professionals, community consultation; procurement; codes,

regulations and guidance; design review; the planning application stage; effective project

management, as well as monitoring and assessment after completion. Ultimately, however,

policymakers and decision-makers must be prepared to demand that development outcomes

meet the aspirations of policy and guidance through the use of the aforementioned tools.


The widely cited ‘Building for Life’ measures may be taken as a useful starting point because

they were developed rigorously, draw on a range of key research and policy, and have already

been broadly adopted within industry. There is scope, however, to develop this system to

further encompass wider sustainability and social values. Systems are needed to ensure the

development of robust qualitative and quantitative data, and to enable design value to be

considered alongside other forms of evidence.

A working definition of design value

A working definition of design value at a neighbourhood scale should reference its three

dimensions: social, economic and environmental value; its position in both processes of

decision making and the assessment of development outcomes; and the individual metrics

used to assess it. It must also acknowledge its subjectivity and the need to draw on a range

of perspectives and evidence types. Whilst there is wide agreement that environmental value

can be measured through carbon, work is needed to agree measures of social value as well

as economic value in this context.


1. Introduction

Why is design value important?

The ‘value’ of well-designed neighbourhoods is foregrounded in UK planning policies as a

route to achieving more sustainable and healthy communities. Policy for neighbourhood

design in all of the four nations broadly agrees that well-designed places have a permeable

and legible street network, integrate mixed use and mixed tenure development, offer equitable

access to open space, promote walking and other modes of active travel, while also achieving

architectural distinctiveness (e.g. MHCLG 2018; Scottish Government 2013a; Welsh

Government 2016a; Department for the Environment Northern Ireland 2014).

The most recent iteration of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in England

(2018) states that creating well-designed places is fundamental to successful planning and

that “[g]ood design is a key aspect of sustainable development” (MHCLG, 2018, p. 38). In

Scotland, the government’s 2013 statement on place and architecture, Creating Places,

makes an explicit link between ‘design’ and ‘value’. It states that “[d]esign provides value by

delivering good buildings and places that enhance the quality of our lives” (Scottish

Government, 2013a, p. 9), and highlights how design can enhance the social, environmental

and economic value of places, as well as their physical and functional value. Similar

commitments to design value are also made in current Welsh and Northern Ireland planning

policy, where the creation of well-designed places is linked to wider health and wellbeing

aspirations in both nations (Welsh Government, 2016b, p. 131; Department of the

Environment Northern Ireland, 2015, p. 15).

Research aim

Despite the policy rhetoric, newly-built neighbourhoods that are well-designed tend to be the

exception rather than the rule. Design is often undervalued both in the procurement of new

development and in the planning decision-making process and, as a result, the quality of new

housing at a neighbourhood scale typically fails to meet the aspirations of policymakers.

In light of the current UK policy emphasis on well-designed places, our evidence review has

two substantive aims: (1) to explore the ways in which ‘design value’ is defined in both the

academic and non-academic literature, and (2) to identify existing methods of measuring and

promoting ‘design value’. Our overall objective is to establish the foundations for an accessible

evidence base to inform housing and planning decision-makers about the value of design.


This report is produced by a cross disciplinary group of researchers at the UK Collaborative

Centre for Housing Evidence and, as such, it focuses on design in the housing sector and

examines sources that specifically consider the value of design at the neighbourhood scale.

We have therefore sought to provide an evidence base for understanding how the terminology

associated with ‘design value’ is currently used and applied in both the scholarly (academic)

and grey literature (non-academic) that is relevant across housing disciplines.

Methodology

The methodology for this evidence review is underpinned by review guidance agreed by the

research team. Adopting this consistent approach ensured that the multiple researchers

involved in the review worked from a common framework and undertook a transparent and

systematic review. The common framework specified:

• The scope of the review;

• The sources reviewed (including academic indices and policy/practice websites and

keywords);

• The key steps in the review process, including criteria for assessment. (See

APPENDIX 3 for the details)

The evidence review does not attempt to be a fully comprehensive account of design value at

the neighbourhood scale. As described above, we restricted the scope in several ways to

provide focus, and ultimately to make the number of documents manageable. We consider

the inevitable research gaps in some detail in the concluding chapter.

1.3.1. Scope of the Review

We decided to focus on recent discussions about design value and examined sources that

were produced over a twenty-year period from 1998 – 2018. The start date was determined

by the beginning of the ‘urban renaissance’ agenda initiated by New Labour in the late 1990s.

This wide-ranging urban policy programme saw the potential value of design and architecture

highlighted in a range of policy directives and planning guidance and also led to investment in

design advocacy and review by new government agencies, including the Commission for

Architecture and the Built Environment in England (1999), Architecture and Design Scotland

(2005), the Design Commission for Wales (2002) and the Ministry Advisory Group for

Architecture and the Built Environment in Northern Ireland (2007) (See Punter (2011), DCAL

(2006) and Carmona et al. (2017) for further details).


The review also incorporates the ten years following the 2007-08 Financial Crash and the

subsequent recession. During this time, and under a new deregulatory central government,

design and the built environment lost status as a core focus of policy. More recently, however,

interest in creating well-designed places appears to have picked up again. This is

demonstrated by the policy statements on good design and design value issued by the four

governments in the UK (outlined in Section 1.1). The renewed policy focus on design has also

emerged in parallel (although not always linked) to the aim of delivering an accelerated

number of homes, particularly in England.

We made a pragmatic decision to focus only on UK-sources however a paucity of evidence

generated by a 2018 call for evidence by the Architects Council for Europe led by the

University of Reading suggests that design value is not well understood at a European level

either, although there are some important and influential pockets of evidence based activity,

for example the renowned international work of Gehl architects based in Copenhagen,

Denmark. A report currently being prepared for Shelter by Nicholas Falke of URBED Learning

from International Examples of Affordable Housing, is likely to be an important contribution to

the field. The review did not include technical material, for example examination of energy

use, for similar reasons. This may have impacted on the inclusion of the sustainability agenda

in our findings.

We also limited our focus to the ‘neighbourhood’ scale to ensure that our study was relevant

to policymakers making decisions about how new housing-led developments help create

places. This focus allows for the consideration of, urban design issues beyond that of the

dwelling including the public spaces between units, while avoiding the complexity of

considering design in the context of urban systems and regional dynamics. A provisional

understanding of the term neighbourhood was used, essentially including developments of a

scale that significantly impacts on the public realm and local community. Some sources we

reviewed gave broad criteria for the kinds of issues that relate to neighbourhood scale (e.g.

BREEAM, 2017) but no clear definition of ‘neighbourhood’ emerged from the review.

Other than excluding obviously poor research or irrelevant articles, we did not make

judgements about the quality of the outputs we reviewed. The range and type of publications

under consideration, both refereed journals and more up to date ‘grey’ industry based

literature, would have made this a challenging task. Our database of sources is thus a

comprehensive list, incorporating academic and non-academic sources rather than a bespoke

collection of the most academically rigorous papers.


1.3.2. Sources reviewed

The review considered both academic and non-academic sources. To identify academic

sources, we utilised the online indices Scopus and Web of Science. These were selected

following a literature mapping exercise published by the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing

Evidence which identified that, together, the two databases cover the largest number of

relevant academic outputs (Serin, 2018). For non-academic sources we used a combination

of Google searches and institutional website search functions. Policy reports and other non-

academic sources (grey literature) are not searchable through the aforementioned academic

indices.

In addition to using indices and search engines, we also identified specific academic journals

that would be appropriate to mine for relevant articles. These journals were selected from a

list compiled by the Centre in the aforementioned literature mapping exercise, with additional

journals identified by the research team based on their expertise (see Appendix 3 for the full

list of journals reviewed).

We also convened two ‘sense-check’ stakeholder meetings. At these meetings, workshop

participants recommended additional journals, papers, and non-academic sources and also

reflected on the meaning of design value. Their contributions fed into the research process,

particularly at the beginning of the project and in its concluding phase.

1.3.3. Key Steps in the review process

We adopted a five-stage review process. First, we reviewed the two academic indices by

running queries on the titles, abstracts, and keywords of the articles, and created a core

database from the returns after employing first-phase inclusion-exclusion criteria (see Table

1 for further details on this process and Appendix 3 for the criteria). Second, we reviewed the

specific academic journals identified by (1) the mapping exercise, (2) members of the project

team, and (3) our stakeholders. We used the same keywords and reviewed the returns

according to the first-phase inclusion-exclusion criteria. Selected articles were then

incorporated into the core database. Third, we reviewed the non-academic (grey) literature

capturing relevant reports and policy documents through Google and institutional search

engines. Relevant documents were selected from a full text review since it was not possible

to use only title, abstract, or keywords due to the nature and organisation of grey literature.

Fourth, we reviewed the full-texts of all the academic and non-academic sources according to

data extraction categories and second-phase inclusion-exclusion criteria (see Appendix 3 for


the criteria). As a result, some documents were excluded from the core database and no data

extraction was applied to them (see Table 1 for details). Fifth, based on the data extracted

during the review, we produced a synthesis which forms the basis of the evidence review.

We ultimately collected a wide and diverse range of sources for this review, including:

academic journal articles; non-academic reports (from Government and NGOs); planning

policy and guidance from the four nations of the UK; and, training manuals on design.

Table 1: Search media, returns and final core database

Search

Media

Search and

review fields

Number of

returns

reviewed

Notes

Academic

Indices

title, abstract,

keywords

1801 Scopus and Web of Science

Journals title, abstract,

keywords and

full-text

792 See Appendix 3 for the journal list

Core

database

full-text 89+2 follow up As a result of reviewing abstracts of

the results from indices and journals,

89 publications were identified.2

other publications were added as a

result of following up references and

a very recent new publication. Cut-

off date for this phase was June

2018.

Final article

database

full-text 39 After reviewing the full-texts of the

articles in the core database, 39

publications (journal articles and

book chapters) were identified

according to inclusion-exclusion

criteria. Data extraction was applied

on these 39 publications, while the

rest of the core database were

excluded.

Grey

literature

full-text 59 After full text reviews, 59 grey

literature publications (e.g. reports,

government guidance) were

reviewed. See appendices for a full

list of grey literature publications.


Report outline

The findings of this review are presented across seven sections (Section 2 – 8) as follows:

• Section 2 is titled What is design value? and focuses on key terminology and

definitions.

• Section 3 is titled Types of design value and considers the multiple ways in which the

value of design is categorised.

• Section 4 is titled The challenge of defining design value and reflects on some of the

inconsistencies associated with reaching a definition of design value.

• Section 5 is titled Metrics used to assess design value and identifies the various ways

that neighbourhood design is categorised.

• Section 6 is titled Measuring design value and considers methods of measurement.

• Section 7 is titled Promoting design value and examines how and why design value is

emphasised in policy.

• Section 8 offers a series of conclusions and suggests areas for further research.

2. What is design value?

This Section considers how design value is defined and discussed. It explores a range of

views identified during the review on the definition of design value in the context of

neighbourhoods, and highlights how the term ‘design value’ often overlaps with other phases

and terms associated with design and the built environment.

The Section also looks at how design is valued both as a process and as a product/output. It

considers some of the factors that make a simple definition hard to achieve and, in particular,

the subjectivity associated with good (or bad) design and its attributable value. Our aim is to

highlight the wide range of interwoven factors that need to be considered when developing a

working definition of design value.

A note on terminology

In the literature the term ‘design value’ is used interchangeably with concepts like ‘design

quality’ and variations thereof. For example, Carmona and De Magalhães (2009) identify

overlaps between terms like “[l]iveability, quality of place, quality of life, environmental

exclusion/equity, urban environmental quality, physical capital, well-being, and even

sustainability” (p. 522).


The commonly used terms identified by Carmona and De Magalhães (2009) are employed

alongside broader concepts like ‘urban design principles’ and the popular buzzword

‘placemaking’. In recent years, new concepts linked to design value have also begun to

emerge. These include: ‘healthy placemaking’ (Design Council, 2018), ‘sustainable urbanism’

(Dittmar et al., 2007), ‘social value’ (Samuel, 2018), its partner ‘Social Return on Investment’

(Watson et al., 2014), and ‘place value’ (Carmona, 2018). Some authors seem to emphasise

the social dimension of design while others favour environmental sustainability.

Identifying ‘place value’ as a potential ‘catch-all’ term for the various concepts associated with

the qualities and values of place, Carmona (2018) argues that it “reflects the idea that a

complex but inter-related basket of benefits accompanies any intervention in the built

environment and ultimately flows to those with a stake in the place: local residents, investors

and developers, everyday users, business owners, public authorities, and so forth” (p. 3).

The interchanging use of allied terms and concepts associated with place and design

contributes to mystifying the concept of ‘design value’. Accordingly, Samuel (2018) argues for

more specificity about the kind of value (or values) being generated. These value types are

teased out in Section 3 of the report.

Why design is valued

The framing of ‘design value’ presupposes that design is valuable. A quote from the Design

Commission for Wales (DCfW), the national design advocate in Wales, expresses this

sentiment in the following simple terms: “Good design makes everything better” (DCfW, 2018,

no page number). In this respect, design is valued because well-designed places or

neighbourhoods are thought to be uplifting and, conversely, poorly designed places are

considered to be dispiriting (Eagle, 2006). A 2006 report by the Commission for Architecture

and the Built Environment (CABE) called The Cost of Bad Design further notes that a lack of

appreciation for the value of design at the outset of a project can create risks which might not

reveal themselves for a number of years, or even decades.

The word ‘value’ tends to be broadly understood as the measurable worth or quality of

something. In a report titled The Value of Urban Design, produced by CABE in 2001, value is

defined by the amount at which it can be exchanged. But, definitions of design value can also

extend beyond monetary calculations (Bowie and Atkins 2010). Thomson et al. (2013) define

value in a normative sense as “the principles by which we live” (p. 340) and describe these


values as “the core beliefs, morals and ideals of individuals….reflected in their attitudes and

behaviours in society” (p. 340).

In the context of designing neighbourhoods, a term for which there are no easy definitions,

‘design value’ might be said to combine all the values derived from a place, whether they are

financial (exchange value) or more socially and culturally grounded (use or aesthetic value).

Design value can also refer to the success (or not) of delivering the desired outcomes of the

designer or rule setter. For example, the English National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

focuses on delivering ‘sustainable development’. In this context, good design is framed around

achieving greener and more resilient places (MHCLG, 2018). There are significant areas of

agreement among professionals about what constitutes good (or bad) design based on

professional judgement, as is regularly evidenced through the process of Design Review. The

non-financial values associated with a place or neighbourhood can range from the holistic to

the specific, from the subjective to the objective and from the tangible to the intangible (e.g.

Bowie and Atkins 2010).

The literature also considers how various stakeholders benefit from well-designed places in

different ways and over different periods of time. According to Carmona et al. (2002a) “better

urban design leads to significant long- and short-term benefits to investors, developers and

designers and to largely long-term benefits for occupiers, public authorities and the

community” (p. 166). These long and short terms benefits vary for each stakeholder. For the

purposes of illustration, investors identify short-term benefits such as higher rental values and

increased asset values, and longer term benefits like maintenance and better resale value.

For developers, short-term benefits include quicker permissions and increased public support,

while longer term benefits might be about generating a good reputation. For occupiers, there

are long-term benefits such as “fewer disruptive moves, greater accessibility to other

uses/facilities, reduced security expenditure, increased occupier prestige, reduced running

cost (energy usage)” (Carmona et al., 2002a, p. 167). Drawing on a Royal Institution of

Chartered Surveyors (RICS) and Department for Education (DoE) funded research project

published in 1996, Carmona et al. (2002a) argue that design quality emerges as a result of

the attitudes of different stakeholders to the “perceived balance between the associated costs,

benefits and risks” (p. 147) of a design proposal.

It is important to note that most sources in the literature also define ‘design value’ in a collective

sense incorporating more than one value. This typically includes both exchange and use

values. For example, in Creating Places, the Scottish Government’s statement on design and

architecture, a range of different values are tied to design value, including “physical value”,


“functional value”, “viability”, “social value”, and “environmental value” (Scottish Government,

2013a, p. 9). Notably, numerous academic and policy sources also focus on the ‘triple bottom

line’ of economic, social and environmental benefits stemming from design (Carmona et al .,

2002b; DCfW, 2018; DCLG, 2017). We explore this particular distinction further in Section 3.

The emphasis on multiple values is often made in response to a perceived bias towards one

or more types of value, particularly visual or aesthetic values (CABE, 2002; DCLG, 2017) or

value for money (NAO, 2005). Chiaradia et al. (2017) criticise the approach of reducing the

value of design to economic value noting how this ignores “physical, spatial and

configurational characteristics that are the essence of urban design” (p. 68). The same authors

criticise valuation methods which take private property value into account, but ignore public or

other use values. As developing techniques such as Social Return on Investment, used by

HACT – the Housing Associations’ Charitable Trust (Fujiwara, 2014) - and others, have grown

more sophisticated it seems likely that more intangible aspects of value, including aesthetic

value, will be monetised. A full discussion of value types is presented in Section 3.

Value in the design process

Many of the sources we reviewed define the value(s) associated with design either entirely,

or partly, in relation to the design process. In the academic literature, certain stages in the

design process are considered important for achieving better design outcomes, such as

employing peer design review, using design competitions for major projects and generating

high quality guidance for new development (White, 2015; Punter, 2007; Carmona, 2016).

Willcocks (2017) further emphasises that “the value of design contributions lies increasingly

within processes which help facilitate and advance discourses between competing desirable

agendas” (pp. 831-832). Notably, the non-academic literature highlights the importance of

collaborative decision-making in the design process, foregrounding:

• A strategic approach which balances various site, policy, and stakeholder

considerations (HCA, 2010; Welsh Government, 2017).

• Adherence to robust project management (OGC, 2007).

• Creativity and imagination (Welsh Government, 2011; Scottish Government, 2013a;

DCAL (2006).

• Bringing together different professionals and stakeholders to work together (CABE

(2002; 2006b).

• Opportunities to identify and address local needs (Design Council, 2017).


A number of the non-academic sources we reviewed either explicitly or implicitly attributed

value to both the process and products/outcomes of design. One especially thoroughgoing

example is the Scottish Government’s Creating Places policy statement which states that:

“Good design is not merely how a building looks, it is an innovative and creative process that

delivers value. Design provides value by delivering good buildings and places that enhance

the quality of our lives.” (Scottish Government, 2013a, p. 8). Samuel (2018) reports that the

design process can deliver value to client bodies through cost savings, brand enhancement

and organisational learning, and to communities of users by promoting engagement,

empowerment, identity, learning, skills development, community cohesion and even crime

reduction.

Value(s) found in design products/outcomes

The values associated with finished design products or outcomes are widely discussed in the

academic and non-academic literature and often focus on the user experience(s) of a new

place or neighbourhood. Carmona (2018) notes that it “might simply be that a high quality

place is one which returns the greatest value to its users with regard to meeting and sustaining

them in healthy, socially rich and economically productive lifestyles that touch lightly on the

environment” (p. 4).

The wider literature, as noted with respect to government policy in Section 1.1, identifies

various specific ‘design qualities’ as adding value to new places and neighbourhoods. Many

such values may be subjective and hard to measure but are nevertheless important, including:

liveability, community, places that enable healthy and active lifestyles, biodiversity, resilience,

safety, and integration with the surrounding environment (Architecture & Design Scotland,

2013; Design Council, 2017; Farrell et al., 2014).

Numerous sources in the literature are also keen to emphasise that design value should not

be narrowly determined by aesthetics; however, the beauty and attractiveness of places is

often cited as an important component of design value (MHCLG, 2018; Wheeler et al., 2014;

DCAL, 2006). The impact of ‘beauty’ on communities achieved important recognition in the

CABE report People and Place: Public Attitudes to Beauty (2010c). Research noted that the

way in which a place looks can impact upon feelings of self-worth (Clark and Kearns, 2012).

The value of design is also commonly linked to the creation of places in which residents have

improved economic opportunities. Key sources in the grey literature note that well-designed

places can improve the reputation of an area, stimulate economic growth, attract people and


businesses, provide access to employment and public transport, or improve the confidence of

investors (CABE, 2006b; Architecture & Design Scotland, 2013). Well-designed places are

also referred to as being efficient in terms of resource use and are thus identified as having

the potential to be more environmentally sustainable (CABE 2003a; HM Government, 2011;

DCLG, 2014).

Dawson and Higgins (2009) further highlight the recent trend of linking good design to social

equity. This approach is premised on the idea that design affects everyone in society and that

a well-designed place has the potential to improve peoples’ everyday quality of life. We found

support for the idea that social equity is core to design value in many grey literature sources

(DCAL, 2006; RTPI, 2016; Scottish Government, 2010) and, more specifically, identified

sources that linked the accessibility and inclusivity of new neighbourhoods to design value,

especially in relation to disability and access for all (Design Council, 2017; HoL NPBE, 2016).

As one report argues, “[g]ood design is inclusive design, and inclusive design should be an

integral part of the design process” (Welsh Government, 2017, p.49).

Section Summary

Design value is a broad concept which overlaps significantly with similar terms like ‘design

quality’, closely related ideas like ‘placemaking’, and more specific terms like ‘sustainable

urbanism’. There is broad consensus that good design adds value to new homes and

neighbourhoods, but less agreement on what elements of design are most valued and why.

The value of design is also understood in a number of different ways, from the intrinsic value

of improving development quality, to the more explicit values expressed by users

demonstrated by exchange value. Discussions of design value often focus on tangible impacts

and economic outputs, but new forms of evaluation such as Social Return on Investment offer

ways of valuing the more intangible impacts of design and placemaking.

Design Value can be delivered through the process of planning and design decision-making,

for example, by architects and planners working with communities, as well as through the use

value(s) of outcomes (e.g. children playing in a new park or a street layout that reduces car

use). Design value can also be measured in the long or short term ,and can focus on the value

to individuals or communities.


3. Types of design value

Section 3 looks specifically at types of design value. As we began to discuss in Section 2,

many academic and non-academic sources identify particular values associated with design

products and outputs, such as the economic benefits associated with good design and the

health and wellbeing determinants resulting from living in a well-designed neighbourhood. The

section first outlines different attempts to create typologies for determining design value,

before focusing on the most widely employed typology found in the academic and non-

academic literatures – the ‘triple bottom line’ of social, environmental and economic value.

The section ends with a short discussion of other commonly cited types of design value.

Typologies of design value

The following typologies identified in the literature categorise the ‘value’ of design in the built

environment in various ways:

• Nase et al. (2015) focus on real estate value, distinguishing between exchange value

(the value in the market in return for other commodities) and use value (the worth that

the commodity creates for users).

• Macmillan (2006) proposes a typology with the following categories: exchange value,

use value, image value, social value, environmental value, and cultural value.

Macmillan’s typology is primarily concerned with the scale of the building, but also

considers the building in its setting through the identification of social, environmental

and cultural value (Macmillan, 2006, p. 266).

• Rowley (1998) proposes ‘considerations’ for defining urban design which also resonate

with types of design value. These are as follows: “functional and social use

considerations; natural environment and sustainability considerations; visual

considerations; and considerations relating to the quality of the urban experience” (p.

154).

• Thomson et al. (2013) identify a series of five clusters related to design value in

construction: “the through-life cost consequences of construction project outcomes”

(durability and cost); “the market-facing monetary aspects of value” (market price,

money, client); “the building attributes considered evidence of value delivery” (design

quality, sustainable, aesthetics, functionality); “the judgement of construction project

outcomes held by an individual” (benefit, worth); and, “the management of the

construction project” (management, time) (p. 224). The authors argue that while some


of these considerations are objective, other are subjective. They therefore propose a

“value continuum” which incorporates all five clusters.

• Cho et al. (2015) propose an urban space value framework which considers the

performance of urban space in relation to value. The authors identify three main

components of urban space: HARDware (the tangible or physical properties of urban

space); SOFTware (the uses, and social and perceptual values of urban space), and

ORGware (the operational and management aspects of urban space). The authors

note that the “three components inevitably overlap and directly or indirectly influence

one another” (Cho et al., 2015, p. 152).

• Carmona et al. (2002b) conceptualise design value through a sustainability lens and

thus identifies economic value, social value and environmental value as three cross-

cutting value types that are linked to common urban design objectives (character,

continuity and enclosure, quality of public realm, ease of movement, legibility,

adaptability, diversity).

• Samuel et al. (2014) examined the value of ‘architecture in homes and

neighbourhoods’ through a literature review that focused on the delivery of ‘community

cohesion’, ‘health, wellbeing and older age’ and ‘identity belonging and heritage’. They

posit a categorisation of ‘architecture’ based on social, cultural and commercial value.

Triple bottom line of social, environmental and economic value

The review found that the ‘triple bottom line’ of social, environmental and economic value, as

identified by Carmona et al. (2002b) is one of the most common ways of grouping value types

in non-academic sources and policy documents in particular. Many of the sources we

reviewed explicitly considered the social, environmental and economic values of design

(DCfW, 2018; MHCLG, 2018; Scottish Government, 2013a; HCA, 2010). For example, the

English National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is focused on achieving ‘sustainable

development’, defined in relation to delivering social, environmental and economic value

(MHCLG, 2018). These common value types are discussed in turn below.

3.2.1. Social value

Social value has come to the fore since the creation of the Social Value Act 2012 which

requires projects procured with public money to take social value into account and recent

changes to HM Treasury’s The Green Book (2018) which suggests that social and

environmental value, as well as economic value, now need to be considered in government


cost benefit analyses. Whilst an amendment to the act excluded contracts for goods and

contracts for work, it puts emphasis on ‘public services’ (UK Gov, 2011). Social Value is

gaining impetus largely via local authorities. It is also gaining prominence through the Well-

being of Future Generations Act (Wales) 2015 (Welsh Gov, 2016b). The recent Construction

Leadership Council report Procuring for Value, acknowledges the importance of accounting

for social value (Bentley, 2018). In the context of the construction industry - and tools such

as the TOMS Framework used by the Social Value Portal - social value tends to be defined

in terms of jobs and apprenticeships. Greater acknowledgment is needed of the way in which

neighbourhood design impacts the local community and influences wider social issues. In this

context, design can deliver social value through places that enable “people and communities

to achieve their full potential”, and “physical forms and layouts that do not hinder, discourage

or distract from this” (Dittmar et al., 2007). In their value framework which conceptualises

sustainable value, Carmona et al. (2002b) define social value (or social benefit as they term

it) as “development that responds to broader public objectives and concerns and which as far

as possible benefits from the support of the local community in which it sits” (p. 67). For

Alzahrani et al. (2017) social value is “an intangible benefit that can be captured from places

that shape community attitude and might often cater to necessary activities but is essential to

everyday functions” (p. 752).

Social value is used to capture a range of different values associated with factors like health

and wellbeing, community activities, active and public transport, public amenities, tackling

deprivation and crime, and equity (Scottish Government, 2013a; Design Council, 2017). It is

also often linked to local enterprise, where it therefore overlaps with economic value (see

Section 3.2.3 for details) (Dittmar et al., 2007; Design Council, 2018).

Social value is identified as a priority in many of the sources reviewed for this report. There

are a few possible reasons for this. One reason is that design is particularly well suited to

delivering social value. To illustrate this, Carmona et al. (2002b) outline the different

perspectives that stakeholders’ have about delivering social value via design. For example,

while developers believe their developments provide social value via regeneration impacts

and job creation, designers believe their schemes add social value via “site regeneration, the

benefits of which they felt would trickle through to local populations, enhancing social

wellbeing and civic pride” (p. 157). A second reason is that there is a widely held perception

that, when design value is considered, certain types of value have tended to be over

emphasised for example economic and aesthetic value (CABE, 2002; DCLG, 2017) or value

for money (NAO, 2005).


A focus on social value is a call to consider the wider values that design can deliver. In a 2014

survey of Scottish design practitioners, most respondents felt social value was among the

most important aspects of design value. However only 10% of the same respondents felt the

built environment industry thought the social value of design was important (Wheeler et al.,

2014, pp. 33-34). There is also evidence that users of housing are often more interested in

design that is associated with social sustainability (e.g. connectivity, safety) than buildings.

There are relatively few examples where a social value framework has been used to evaluate

the wellbeing impacts of housing and neighbourhood design, for example by fostering active

lifestyles, connecting people and activating positive emotions. This is a gap currently being

addressed by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA), working with the New Economics

Foundation and MHCLG who are developing a Social Value Toolkit for architects (Samuel,

2018).

3.2.2. Environmental value

Environmental value is generally defined in relation to the impacts on the local and/ or non-

local environment and is invariably tied to wider concerns about sustainable development, i.e.

“building an environment which meets the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (MHCLG, 2018; DCAL, 2006). Carmona

et al. (2002b) define environmental value as “development that delivers more energy efficient,

robust, ecologically supportive and less polluting patterns of urban form” (p. 67). It became

clear, through consultation, that carbon is a widely accepted currency of environmental value.

Environmental value is used to capture a wide range of issues, including resource efficiency,

carbon reduction, air quality, landscape, habitats, water and waste management, reducing car

dependence, generally improving natural/environmental resources, and interaction with the

wider ecosystem (Welsh Government, 2017; Bichard and Higham, 2018; Farrell et al., 2014).

There is also often a ‘lifestyle’ element to environmental value and a wide-ranging literature

on how urban form (in particular denser urban form) can encourage residents and visitors to

live sustainable lifestyles (Dittmar et al., 2007). Environmentally friendly neighbourhoods, if

designed well, also have the potential to generate more seamless connections between

humans and the natural world which, in turn, can have a positive impact on people’s health

and wellbeing. This highlights an obvious overlap with social value and people’s enjoyment of

their surrounding environment (Scottish Government, 2014). As with social value,

environmental value is often discussed in relation to its contribution to economic value. For

example, how improving the condition of environmental assets makes a place more attractive


to work and invest in, generating jobs and wider economic benefits (Scottish Government,

2014, p. 21).

3.2.3. Economic value

Economic value is generally defined in relation to the contribution of design to local and non-

local forms of beneficial economic activity. It is linked to terms like ‘financial value’, ‘growth’,

‘productivity’ – all of which are treated as intrinsically valuable. Economic value is also seen

as valuable for unlocking investment or finance for infrastructure and other benefits, such as

social housing and public space (Scottish Government, 2014). Economic value can be tied to

a wide range of outcomes including job creation, local economic development, benefits to

businesses and the ability to attract finance (Bichard and Higham, 2018; CABE, 2006b;

Jenkins et al., 2008; Hack and Sagalyn, 2011). It is often given primacy, for example because

developments are not viable if they are not economically sustainable (Dittmar et al., 2007).

Economic value is also linked to the financial benefits of pursuing development. For example,

the long-term savings or increased revenues that can arise from good design (HCA, 2014;

DCLG, 2016). Carmona et al. (2002b) argue that “broadly the evidence suggested that better

urban design adds economic value” (p. 76) and various stakeholders such as investors,

developers and occupiers tend to agree with this conclusion. Carmona et al. (2002a) further

points out that stakeholders acknowledge that the benefits of good design “significantly

outweigh the costs, particularly at the prestige end of the market” (p.165). However, in a later

paper, Carmona (2018) also warns that some of the perceived benefits of well-designed

places, such as higher property values, can have a negative impact on local areas where

affordability is a challenge. This is one of the problems that can be associated with

‘gentrification’.

Economic value is also used to capture anything which can support local economic resilience

or economic growth, which in practice blurs into social and environmental value. As the Design

Council (2017, p. 1) explain, “Making sure we have the good quality homes that people need,

and that they can afford, with the necessary physical and social infrastructure that transforms

quality of place enabling areas to thrive, is fundamental to economic growth” (Design Council,

2017, p. 1). This reflects a tendency to define all kinds of value in relation to their contribution

to economic value.


Other commonly identified types of value

While it may be possible to group a wide range of values under the banner of the triple bottom

line of the social, economic and environmental (or combinations thereof), we have found that

other clusters emerge repeatedly in the sources reviewed. These need to considered

alongside social, economic and environmental value, and are as follows:

• Heritage value: This refers to the value inherent in the architectural, cultural, historical,

and natural heritage of the area in which development is taking place (DCAL, 2006;

Scottish Government, 2014). The Scottish Government also link heritage value to the

delivery of other kinds of value like community and economic value (2013a).

• Health value: This is particularly related to work on healthy placemaking (Design

Council, 2018). As with other types of value, it is presented as a particular type of value

to draw attention to its importance, and to avoid any risk that it will be overlooked

(Design Council, 2017; HoL NPBE, 2016).

• Cultural value: This can be closely linked to ‘cultural capital’. In the context of homes

and neighbourhoods it can refer to the added cachet, brand value or ‘iconicity’ that

can be brought to a project through the authorship of, or association with, a famous

architect or artist (Samuel, 2018). It also links back to heritage value, the value of

particular cultures and their settings – for example the Scottish tenements – not least

for tourism.

• Functional value: This type of value is necessarily relational rather than objective. It

relates to the success of the development in achieving its defined function or functions

(Scottish Government, 2013a; NAO, 2005; Bichard and Higham, 2018).

Section Summary

It is easier to be clear about the value of design by subdividing it into value types. This section

set out a range of existing systems for categorising subsets of design value, before focusing

on the triple bottom line of Social Value, Environmental Value and Economic Value. Although

there is considerable overlap between these types they provide a useful framework for

discussions of design value.

.


4. The challenge of defining design value

In this section we reflect on some of the specific difficulties associated with defining design

value and categorising value types. Chiaradia et al.’s (2017) work highlights this challenge

and its complexity by noting that the value of urban design is often intertwined with wider

social-economic values, beliefs and preferences which shape and have been shaped by urban

places. To these authors, value is a way of representing meaning; values shape design and

therefore the value of design is a product of the design process. This section therefore

explores the challenge of definition in more depth, recognising that value is experienced from

a variety of different perspectives and at a range of spatial scales.

The foreword to the report The Value of Good Design points out that “when we invest in the

built environment, we must consider the impact of design throughout the lifetime of the

buildings, on the places in which they are located and on all stakeholders involved" (Lipton

2002, no page number). Several sources in the literature reflect further on why it can be difficult

to draw out a singular definition of design value. For example:

• Khan et al. (2014) argue that there is no consensus on the meaning of spatial quality

in the literature and therefore various different ways of understanding valued places:

“A universal understanding of the concept ‘spatial quality’ does not exist, except as

shorthand for either the intention to invest some ‘extra’ (talent, care, aesthetics, money,

etc.), or to stress a ‘normative’ attitude and endeavour” (Khan et al., 2014, p.393). This

wider challenge makes assigning a value to design in the built environment all the

more challenging.

• Carmona et al. (2002a) note the differences in perception of a ‘good’ urban

environment and design value by different stakeholders as the following quotation

explains: “An office worker or shopper may have a very different perception of what

makes a good urban environment, from an estate manager charged with its upkeep,

whilst a developer may perceive the added value in a development very differently

from a local resident. This reflects the ease with which the built environment allows

different stakeholders to meet their particular objectives. In this regard a broad range

of stakeholders are involved in making, using and managing urban developments.”

(Carmona et al., 2002, p. 142).

• From workshops conducted with expert designers, Macmillan (2006, p. 265) contends

that research on design value is often “anecdotal, academic, unsorted, and neither


robust nor replicable” making it difficult to provide a quantifiable determination of

design value.

• A major 2014 study of design value and the built environment in Scotland found

scepticism about the very concept of objective design value, and also identified

stakeholders involved in the design and development process who did not value

design. One key finding was that the built environment is valued “in a variety of ways

that are not consistent, transparent or comparable and from a range of different

standpoints”, further stating that “[a] fundamental issue that immediately arose in a

number of the discussions is ‘whose value’ or ‘value to whom’” (Wheeler et al., 2014,

p. 21).

Design value and subjectivity

Definitions of design value and desired outcomes can differ substantially based on the

professional background of the author(s). This can be due to differences in education and

familiarity, but can also relate to professional power struggles around delivery and

responsibility for design as well as the role that a particular actor or actors might be playing in

the design process (Wheeler et al., 2014). Differences can also be found across scholarly sub-

fields where perceptions about value are focused towards different elements of the design

process or on different products/outcomes (i.e. a building versus a neighbourhood or district).

There has long been a challenge of difference in perception in practice between “planners,

local politicians, developers, the public, architects and urban designers” (Wheeler et al., 2014,

p. 15). For example, a 2008 Scottish Government report on housing design revealed that

developers perceived that professional architects have different ideals about design to

consumers, and that delivering on those different ideals is often inefficient and complex

(Jenkins et al., 2008). Similar findings emerged in a 2014 review by the Homes and

Communities Agency (now Homes England) which also concluded that good design should

avoid “expensive architectural features with limited benefit to the user” (HCA, 2014, p.4).

What these findings demonstrate is that design value is at least in part subjective, and

moreover, that this subjectivity is not always obvious to stakeholders. Carmona et al. (2002a)

point out that the “perceived balance between the associated costs, benefits and risks” is

different for different stakeholders. In this respect, the value of better design is “to some extent

relative”, and “a function of interacting hierarchies of considerations applied by developers,

investors and occupiers, each with their own rationale” (Carmona et al., 2002, p.149).


These findings have clear implications for the way evidence on design value should be

communicated to decision-makers, in the sense that there may not be no one simple approach

that works for everyone. A robust mix of qualitative and quantitative data is needed. In this

context, the value of the design process, discussed in Section 2.3, becomes particularly

important as a way to mediate between competing views on good place design, whether they

come from professionals, policy-makers, or communities. Macmillan (2006) exemplifies the

need for this approach in a succinct description of the competing, but potentially

complimentary, values associated with creating places:

Investors and developers see higher returns, designers see repeat

business, commercial occupiers benefit from staff recruitment and loyalty,

and everyday users benefit from an improved urban environment and

enhanced range of amenities. For central and local government

understanding these kinds of correlations between better design and social

and economic outcomes is a clear priority in order to ensure the maximum

leveraging effect of public investment and greatest gains to the local

population – providing, of course, that they do not displace the very people

who were originally intended to benefit from the regeneration. (Macmillan,

2006, pp. 262-263).

Design value and the user experience

The experiences of people living in new homes and neighbourhoods must be central to any

consideration of design value. If it is not possible, nor should it be desirable, to impose

universal top-down conceptions of design value. It is crucial to find ways to match design to

the aspirations of housing users. As the previous section alludes, the range of stakeholders

engaged in the design process can sometimes mean that the role of the user is easily

overlooked. Although a number of the sources reviewed for this report did consider the needs

and views of neighbourhood residents directly, many did not.

In spite of this, one common way to define design value is in relation to user experiences.

Social value is identified as a key type of design value (see Section 3.2.2), and the

attractiveness of places to people and the equitability of place are seen as central to definitions

of value (see Section 2.4). Understanding user experience might be achieved through

identifying what it is that users demand from new housing (APPG BE, 2016; Popular Housing

Forum, 1998), or by emphasising the role of communities and housing users in design

processes (MHCLG, 2018; Design Council, 2017). Notably, the role that users can play in


defining design value was particularly prominently acknowledged in the UK Government

sources we reviewed, for example:

• The English NPPF states that: “Design policies should be developed with local

communities so they reflect local aspirations” (MHCLG, 2018).

• English Planning Practice Guidance on design notes that: “Local communities play a

vital part in good design. Those who live and work in an area often best understand

the way in which places operate and its strengths and weaknesses” (DCLG, 2014).

• A range of the other Government publications we reviewed also make direct reference

to user experience (DCAL, 2006; DCLG, 2017; APPG BE, 2016; DCLG, 2016).

Design value and the challenge of scope and scale

This review set out to focus on sources which considered design value at the neighbourhood

scale. It revealed that design value is in fact discussed at a wide range of different scales.

Indeed, Wheeler et al. (2014) argue that design encompasses everything from “the city to the

spoon”, including system designs like transport, strategic spatial planning, and the

“paraphernalia that inhabits our built environment” (p. 21). This ensures there is an

understandable lack of clarity around the impact of design at different scales, and also means

that a simple definition of neighbourhood design value is difficult to obtain because it has the

potential to mean a lot of different things. As Carmona et al. (2002b, p. 64) state, “how to

define the exact scope and nature of good design” is one of the key challenges associated

with measuring urban design.

The findings of our review illustrate these challenges well. We have encountered design value

being discussed at various scales and from varying perspectives, although often with little

clarity about the precise scale under consideration. Reports ranged from design value being

linked to virtually all outcomes associated with development on the one hand (Bichard and

Higham, 2018) to a more restricted focus on how design influences individual homes on the

other (HoC Library, 2017). The ‘neighbourhood’ scale was nevertheless discussed in

numerous sources and was considered especially valuable for a number of key reasons, as

follows:

• Emphasising the neighbourhood scale ensures that any conceptualisation of design

value goes beyond the narrow strictures of a building or site, but also limits the focus

to an area which can be influenced by the design of individual sites (CABE, 2003b;


DCLG, 2012; MHCLG, 2018; Welsh Government, 2017; Birkbeck and Kruczkowski,

2015; HCA 2011).

• Focusing on the neighbourhood scale allows the interrogation of issues such as urban

density, which studies of individual buildings do not (Savills, 2015).

• The neighbourhood level is a sensible scale for considering wider urban design issues

(Welsh Government, 2017; Birkbeck and Kruczkowski, 2015; DCLG, 2012), but avoids

the complexity of considering design in the context of wider urban systems and

regional dynamics. For example, Fixing our Broken Housing Market emphasises how

neighbourhood plans are a good level for producing actionable design guidance and

codes (DCLG, 2017).

• Evidence suggests that the neighbourhood scale is considered valuable by housing

users who ascribe value to the area they live in as well as their individual home

(Wheeler et al., 2014). This allows for a focus on the linkages between home and local

community infrastructure that are considered socially valuable like security, quality

schools, access to open spaces, etc. (DCAL, 2006; Farrell et al., 2014; Wheeler et al.,

2014).

One challenge with focusing on the neighbourhood scale, however, is that it does not consider

the important issue of how neighbourhoods relate to one another. For example, how one

development might contribute to inequality by influencing neighbourhoods around it. Further,

the boundaries of a particular neighbourhood is difficult to delineate with any precision (Burns

and Kahn, 2005). The review failed to pick up any precise definitions of the term

‘neighbourhood’.

Section Summary

Design Value can relate to the use value of places as well as being delivered through the

process of planning and design decision making about a new place, for example by architects

and planners working with communities. It can be measured in the long or short term.

Design value can be highly subjective. This means that, in order to enable design value to

take its place alongside other forms of evidence, different types of evidence and ways of

communicating it may be needed, along with a range robust qualitative and quantitative data.

The user experiences of people living in new homes and neighbourhoods must be central to

any consideration of design value.


Design value is discussed at a range of scales but there are several good reasons to focus on

the neighbourhood scale. However, other scales of evaluation are needed that evaluate the

impact of neighbourhoods on wider urban systems and regional dynamics.

5. Metrics used to assess design value

This Section examines specific criteria and metrics which are used for measuring design at

the neighbourhood scale. Many of the sources included in the wider review discuss the value

of specific design criteria or principles. While each source tends to focus on its own exacting

set of metrics, there is also significant overlap. Clearly there is a degree of subjectivity

associated with identifying and measuring each of the criteria discussed, but we nevertheless

propose that it is helpful to isolate a set of criteria as the basis for reaching a definition of

neighbourhood design value. This approach is consistent with a range of sources in the

literature.

Building for Life 12 design value metrics

Building for Life is an evidence-based set of metrics for guiding residential design and a

process for assessing developments based on those metrics. It was originally developed by

the Commission for Architecture in the Built Environment (CABE) and has been informed by

several literature reviews and other evidence gathering (CABE, 2001b; Building for Life, 2005).

The Building for Life criteria appear to have gained a strong foothold in UK policy- and practice-

focused literature (Carmona et al., 2002b; DCLG, 2017) and are therefore introduced before

other commonly cited metrics are discussed (see Section 5.2). The first set of Building for Life

criteria were published in 2003; they have been revised several times since.

The latest version of Building for Life – ‘Building for Life 12’ (Birkbeck and Kruczkowski, 2015)

– associates 12 criteria with achieving design value at the neighbourhood scale. These are

listed below and are very similar to the aspirations for well-designed places in UK government

policy outlined at the beginning of the report (note that for each of the criterion listed we have

referenced other sources that identified similar or overlapping concepts):

• Connections: reinforcing existing connections and creating new ones (Birkbeck and

Kruczkowski, 2015; Bichard and Higham, 2018).

• Facilities and services: proximity to/and provision of community facilities (Birkbeck and

Kruczkowski, 2015; LGA et al. 2015; Dittmar et al., 2007).


• Public transport: access to (also discussed as access to sustainable travel) (Birkbeck

and Kruczkowski, 2015; Welsh Government, 2017; Scottish Government, 2014;

Dittmar et al., 2007; Bichard and Higham, 2018).

• Meeting local housing requirements (Birkbeck and Kruczkowski, 2015; LGA et al.,

2015; Dittmar et al., 2007; GLA, 2010).

• Character: locally inspired and distinctive (Birkbeck and Kruczkowski, 2015; Welsh

Government, 2017; DCAL, 2006).

• Working with site and context: land scale, habitat, orientation, etc (Birkbeck and

Kruczkowski, 2015; Welsh Government, 2017; NAO, 2005; HCA, 2011).

• Creating well defined streets and places (Birkbeck and Kruczkowski, 2015; DCLG,

2016; LGA et al., 2015; HCA, 2014; Scottish Government 2010; Dittmar et al., 2007).

• Easy to find your way around (Birkbeck and Kruczkowski, 2015; Scottish Government,

2014; Dittmar et al., 2007; Bichard and Higham, 2018).

• Streets for all: functional as social spaces (Birkbeck and Kruczkowski, 2015; HCA,

2014; Welsh Government, 2017).

• Car parking (Birkbeck and Kruczkowski, 2015; HCA, 2014).

• Public and private spaces: the demarcation of (Birkbeck and Kruczkowski, 2015; LGA

et al., 2015; DCAL, 2006; Bichard and Higham, 2018).

Given their wide use and strong overlap with policy around the UK, we would suggest that

Building for Life is a good starting point both in defining the scope of neighbourhood design

value and in beginning to build an evidence base for decision-makers The social enterprise

‘Social Life’ has used Building for Life as the basis for a tool for measuring social impact and

it is widely used in practice. That being said, some of the practitioners who read an early draft

of this evidence review noted that the criteria-based framework of Building for Life can mean

it is quite vague and not sufficiently robust to enforce strong design standards.

As noted above, our review identified a range of additional measures. These are listed below:

• Accessibility and inclusive design: ensuring development is accessible to everyone

(Welsh Government, 2017; Bichard and Higham, 2018).

• Environmental sustainability: efficient use of natural resources and positive

environmental impact, as well as additional specific environmental metrics within this

e.g. flood risk, noise pollution, ecology strategy, adapting to climate change, and

green infrastructure (Welsh Government, 2017; Scottish Government, 2014; Dittmar

et al., 2007; Bichard and Higham, 2018; BREEAM, 2017).


• Security and natural surveillance: safe public spaces with design which deters criminal

behaviour (Welsh Government, 2017; Scottish Government, 2014; DCAL, 2006).

• Adaptability: allows a range of uses and can be adapted easily to meet future needs

(LGA et al., 2015; Scottish Government, 2014; NAO, 2005; HCA 2010).

• Efficient use of space: relatively high net density, units and floorspace (Dittmar et al.,

2007; Savills, 2015; Welsh Government, 2017).

• Appropriate housing mix: minimising inequalities and fostering inclusion by ensuring

appropriate housing provision and tenure mix (BREEAM, 2017; Welsh Government

2017; MHCLG 2014).

Hierarchies of value

Some research considers a hierarchy among the qualities associated with design, with some

considered fundamental and others secondary (Carmona and De Magalhães, 2009). The

qualities listed at the top of the hierarchy are those such as creating a safe, secure, clean and

tidy environment. More secondary concerns include creating fulfilling, distinctive, attractive

and functional places that are robust, accessible, comfortable, green and unpolluted, vital and

viable, inclusive. As a parallel to the approach of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, Carmona and

De Magalhães (2009) note that “the more satisfied local communities were with their local

environment, the more they tended to focus on, and were critical of, the lower order issues”

(p. 531).

We also received feedback at our stakeholder event that it was important to consider potential

trade-offs between different metrics and value types. The ‘forgiveness factor’, a little explored

concept in sustainable design, acknowledges that people will put up with poor environmental

conditions if their home offers other kinds of paybacks. An example might be the way in which

older people feel their home is warmer than it is if it has a cosy décor (Devine-Wright, 2014).

Section Summary

The criteria introduced in this section provide a strong base for developing a working definition

of design value. The Building for Life measures may be taken as a useful starting point, both

because they were developed rigorously and draw on a range of key research and policy, and

because they have already been broadly adopted. However other metrics should also be

considered. Especially those more intrinsically linked to social and environmental

sustainability.


6. Measuring design value

As described in the introduction, one of the key objectives of this review is the development

of an evidence base to help decision-makers determine design value. This Section initially

considers a range of methods that might be employed to measure design value, before turning

to a discussion about some of the challenges associated with measurement. This is a crucial

step toward developing an evidence base for design value, since it identifies the various

sources for such an evidence base, along with some of the main challenges associated with

collecting that evidence.

Methods of measurement

6.1.1. Measuring economic value

Economic approaches to valuation are desirable to decision-makers because they allow for

the comparison of alternatives in a way that is directly relatable to budgets and viability

(Wheeler et al., 2014). Design value is no exception to this. The principal way of measuring

the economic value of design is by estimating the impact that design has on the price of land

or housing. For example, Valuing Sustainable Urbanism estimates the value of design using

data on residential and commercial property values (Dittmar et al., 2007), while Nase et al.

(2015) adopting a similar approach, present their perspective as one that “considers built

environment products as commodities to be traded” (p. 569). In this context, economic value

is defined as the “exchange value or market value as represented by achieved property prices”

(p. 569). Yet, an analysis of the relationship between design quality and property value by

Bowie and Atkins (2010) demonstrated that it is actually quite hard to correlate particular

design attributes to property price (or economic value). The authors found that a range of

variables impact the price of new dwellings and that many of these variables are unrelated to

design, such as location and dwelling size.

Market value was nevertheless the most prominent type of evidence that Scottish design

practitioners reported using in a 2014 survey, with almost a third making assessments “[b]ased

on individual house/building value and total place value of neighbourhood” (Wheeler, 2014, p.

35). Other types of evidence for design value may also be expressed in economic terms, for

example Social Return on Investment or Natural Capital accounting (Wheeler, 2014). A more

holistic view of value can be developed using a multifaceted approach (Pain et al, 2018), but


without the inclusion of reliable social variables, something that is difficult to achieve,

economic models can be problematic.

6.1.2. Measuring social value

There are several slightly different systems, some run by private consultancies, for measuring

the Social Value of housing. A number of sources in our review used, or made reference to,

ways of measuring social value, including:

• Social return on investment, e.g. using reports of stakeholders and socio-economic

statistical data (Bichard and Higham, 2018, Watson and Whitley, 2016). These are

increasingly being used by local authorities but rely on a patchy and sometimes

problematic set of financial proxies for monetisation.

• Impact on wellbeing and social sustainability, e.g. whether housing tenure and type

respond to local housing need, and how well different tenure types are integrated

(BREEAM, 2017).

• Impact on health outcomes, although in their report on Healthy Placemaking, the

Design Council (2018) report that this Social Value is considered particularly hard to

measure by practitioners. This is in a context in which practitioners rarely monitor the

performance of their buildings.

• The Treasury Green Book provides guidance on valuing economic, social and

environmental consequences (Jenkins et al., 2008).

• The website Global Value Exchange maintained by Social Value UK collects a large

number of metrics on social value (Bichard and Higham, 2018).

• HACT and NEF are, with the Social Value Bank, developing financial proxies for

monetising social value but none as yet reflect the value of design as lived experience,

for example the way in which buildings can give communities a sense of pride.

A joined up and simple approach to Social Value in the context of housing is needed. Social

Value as field needs considerable work. This cannot happen without the development of a

culture of systematic, Post Occupancy Evaluation and improved strategy for the monitoring of

building impact.

6.1.3. Measuring environmental value

This review did not encounter many tools for measuring the environmental impact of good

design. While this could reflect a deficit in this type of measurement, it may also be because


we chose to investigate design at a neighbourhood scale. This therefore excluded both a focus

on technical building standards and a wider focus on the environmental impacts of the housing

system as a whole or at a regional level. The environmental impacts of housing development

are strongly linked to both the performance of individual buildings and the location of

neighbourhoods and their relationship with things like transport infrastructure. Thus, it is often

easier to consider the environmental value of individual homes or the housing system in a

region, rather than at a neighbourhood scale.

One tool that was mentioned was BREEAM, an industry tool for assessing sustainability in

development projects (Bichard and Higham, 2018; Wheeler et al., 2014; NAO, 2005).

BREEAM includes a range of different tools, of which one, BREEAM Communities, operates

as at a neighbourhood scale, promoting itself as a way to assess environmental, social and

economic impacts of large scale development plans with a focus on sustainability (BREEAM,

2018). The technical manual covers 40 areas, including housing provision. Over half the topics

consider building level issues, however it also considers neighbourhood scale environmental

issues like flood risk, noise pollution, energy strategy, ecology strategy, adapting to climate

change, and green infrastructure. Projects are scored based on these and other criteria, with

a ‘pass’ mark of 30% (BREEAM, 2017). Another tool, Building with Nature, did not come up in

our review, but was familiar to the researchers. Building with Nature provides an assessment

and accreditation service for the design of green infrastructure in housing and commercial

development (Building with Nature, 2018).

6.1.4. Post occupancy evaluation

Several sources we reviewed also mentioned user/resident surveys or consumer research as

a way of understanding the value of design from a user perspective (Jenkins et al. 2008;

CABE, 2010a; HCA, 2010). Particular examples include surveying residents on satisfaction

with new-build housing and surveying the general public on their perception of new housing

developments. A key means of user assessment is Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE), which

allows for the assessment of the actual qualities of a development after it is completed. Several

sources we reviewed advocated its use in evaluating and promoting the design quality of

residential developments (APPG BE, 2016; OGC, 2007; NAO, 2005; Design Council, 2018).

27% of design practitioners surveyed in a Scottish study reported using POE (Wheeler, 2014).

Other reports suggest that the number is far less (RIBA, 2017.

The mainstreaming of robust and consistent forms of POE is an important cross sector

challenge, one in which policy and clients play a vital role. The RIBA report Building


Knowledge: Pathways to Post Occupancy (2017) gives an up-to-date account of the

development of good practice in post occupancy evaluation (POE) and its sister Building

Performance Evaluation. The focus of POE tends to be on environmental conditions and there

is considerable scope to develop further forms of POE that valorise more intangible aspects

of experience such as design value and social value (Hay et al, 2017).

6.1.5. Official monitoring

Several sources we reviewed discussed the role of the Planning regimes in monitoring design

outcomes. In a 2014 survey conducted in Scotland, Scottish Planning Policy was listed as the

third most popular way of assessing design value by design practitioners in a 2014 survey

(43%), with Planning Advice Note 83 cited by 33% (Wheeler, 2014). The same practitioners

also reported using “design guidance developed for local plans, masterplans and design

reviews, local plan policy and supplementary guidance, local design review panels” (Wheeler,

2014, p. 35). However, there was also a concern identified in the literature that, due to lack of

resources, the role of planning and building control regimes could have limited effectiveness

(Design Council, 2017; HoL NPBE 2016), or that it would be desirable to have more

independent inspections (APPG EiBE, 2016). To some extent the need for monitoring relates

to the potential role of post-occupancy research noted in Section 6.1.4.

6.1.6. Post-completion design review

Design review in various forms can be used to measure design value and design review during

the planning process is discussed in Section 7.2.4. Post-completion, Building for Life 12 is

often used as a form of design review. The criteria are not attached to particular measurable

outcomes. Instead, each criterion (listed in Section 5.1) is attached to a specific set of

questions designed to encourage reflection on the quality of the design. Designs are scored

according to a traffic light system, with Red (needs to be reconsidered), Amber or Green

(Birkbeck and Kruczkowski, 2015). The English National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

advocates the use of Building for Life and other assessment frameworks (MHCLG, 2018, p.

128).

Each of the Building for Life and other design value criteria discussed in Chapter 5 should be

linkable to specific measurable features or outcomes. Some of the sources we reviewed took

this approach. These could either be specific and obvious features of the design plans

themselves, for example lines of sight or building features, or they could be higher level

outcomes which design seeks to affect. For example, the House of Lords Select Committee


for the Built Environment suggested that the English NPPF should “set out a common

framework of health indicators for local planning authorities to monitor” (HoL NPBE, 2016, p.

30). Collecting a list of these measures and deciding which are the most useful and powerful

may be a key step toward developing an evidence base on design value to influence decision-

makers.

We also identified some examples of evaluations which moved beyond the site level to

evaluate design quality over many sites. In particular, one source discussed CABE’s housing

audits that were conducted between 2004-2007 and which used Building for Life to assess a

range of housing developments in particular regions (CABE, 2010a).

6.1.7. Other industry tools

We identified a number of further industry tools which particular sources mentioned could be

used for assessing design value. These included:

• Housing Quality Indicators (HQIs): HQIs were set up by the Housing Corporation

(which became the HCA, and then Homes England) in order to help people assess

housing delivery against the HCA’s core housing standards. The HCA subsequently

developed a calculator to provide a score on space and functionality factors (HCA,

2010). It was proposed that all projects claiming HCA funding should be required to

use it (HCA, 2011). However, this was never enforced due to different priorities

stemming from a change to the UK Government in 2010 and was ultimately dropped

as part of the HCA’s 2013 standards review (Briginshaw, 2015).

• Lifecycle or whole-life costing: this involves an assessment of the costs of a

development over its life, which was mentioned in a number of sources (Construction

Procurement Strategy Steering Group, 2011; Scottish Government, 2013b; HCA,

2010).

• The Six Qualities of Successful Places: a tool published by the Scottish Government,

which was used by 45% of design practitioners surveyed in one study (Wheeler,

2014).

• Design Quality Indicators (DQIs) and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs): assessing

delivery on specific design-related objectives (OGC, 2007; NAO, 2005).

• AEDET (Achieving Excellence Design Evaluation Toolkit) Review (Wheeler, 2014).

• The WELL Building Standard: a tool for promoting health and wellbeing in

development (Bichard and Higham, 2018).


6.1.8. Ad-hoc evaluation

Several sources mentioned that design value is very often measured by individual

practitioners in an ad-hoc way. In a survey of design practitioners commissioned by the

Scottish Government, “55% of respondents cited intuition/professional judgement as the most

frequently used tool to assess the value of design” (Wheeler, 2014, p. 35). Research from the

Design Council also had a similar finding, noting that practitioners create and collect their own

evidence (Design Council, 2018, p. 34). Unfortunately, such evidence has little traction with

policymakers and clients.

The measurement challenge

The range of different measurement approaches and the noted reliance on ad hoc reporting

highlights the challenge of consistent measurement. In a wide-ranging report on design value

for the Scottish Government, Wheeler et al. (2014) identify the difficulty of measuring design

value given there is “no common language, shared understanding or foundation, and many

variables had been studied under various guises” (p. 20). They argue that it is particularly

challenging to include both financial and non-financial variables, and tangible and non-tangible

assets.

Dewulf and van Meel (2004) reinforce this point by noting the difficulty of finding objective or

universal standards. While they acknowledge the possibility of measuring some qualities, such

as air quality or adequate illumination, they argue that it becomes more difficult to measure

socio-psychological qualities such as privacy, beauty or delight. Eley (2004) notes that such

subjectivity affects not just the qualities being valued, but also the process of measurement:

“who is measuring or judging what and why” (p.255).

Some approaches to valuation or evidence types are more popular than others. For example,

decision-makers may be more comfortable with economic valuation due to its quantifiability.

Plus, there may also be some overlap between methods. The economic value of a place may

well be a part of a post-occupancy evaluation where the future value of an individual’s dwelling

might be relevant to their assessment of a neighbourhood’s value. That being said, sources

reported several issues associated with the economic valuation of design. First, it is difficult to

separate out the impact of design from other factors, especially when using market prices to

measure economic value. Carmona et al. (2002b) point out that, even where economic value

can be measured, it is hard to separate the impact of design value from that of “location, use,

market and usable floor area” (p.64). Nase et al. (2016, p. 309) furthermore notes that,


although design quality is accepted as an important element for an urban development, the

types of value created are “of an intangible nature thus leading to wide scepticism about its

economic value.”

There is a risk that when economic valuation is considered straightforward or particularly

suitable for decision-makers, it will supplant more useful measures. Chiaradia et al. (2017)

criticize adopting an instrumental approach to valuing urban design which measures value as

a single number. While common in the real estate sector, they criticise this approach for being

“the reductive dismissal of design considerations that are important, but difficult to couch in

terms of numbers” (Chiaradai et al, 2017, p.66). In this respect, evidence of the social value

of design is more difficult to find because it is mostly experienced by residents, meaning it is

currently of less interest to developers, who are more interested in return on capital. For

similar reasons it is also given less emphasis in official guidance (Bichard and Higham, 2018).

Engagement with social value might be incentivised if it could be used in negotiations around

Section 106, agreements made between local authorities and developers to make a

development acceptable, in planning (Samuel, 2018b).

A call for more evidence

Regardless of the approach to measuring design value, the quantity, quality and accessibility

of evidence is crucial. Many of the sources we reviewed highlighted the importance of

evidence, for example in engaging key stakeholders and getting politicians to prioritise design

(Design Council, 2018). However, despite the range of methods discussed above, our overall

impression from this review is that design value is not currently being measured in a consistent

or useful way.

In a survey of Scottish design practitioners, 40% felt they had inadequate tools to measure

design value, compared to only 24% who felt they did. 62% also expressed a need for better

valuation methods (Wheeler, 2014, p. 36). A key need identified by the Design Council (2018,

p. 62) was to develop a “centralised repository of evidence” along with support for measuring

impact. Furthermore, a recent report from the law firm Trowers, called for “more and better

techniques, metrics and ways to understand the societal value of development” (Bichard and

Higham, 2018, p. 5). Recent developments in digital technology offer new methods to gather

user feedback, for example through mobile phones and other media. A consistent approach

is needed to gather and utilise this rich potential vein of data (Samuel, 2018).


Section Summary

Tools for measuring design and social value are not currently well established in the

development industry. Market valuation is a well-established economic methodology, but

robust measures of social value are needed to assist with the production of robust economic

models. There are some existing or developing methods for measuring social and

environmental value but they do not appear to be widely used, and there is little centrally

collected data on the social and environmental value of new neighbourhoods. A paucity of

Post Occupancy Evaluation across the housing sector means that we have very little

information on what works.

There is significant demand for new measurement tools and evidence. The absence of

consistent and rigorous measures of design value is has impacted on innovation in the sector.

7. Promoting design value

This section considers the main ways in which the value of design is promoted in policy and

practice. It does this by reflecting upon who makes decisions about design value, mapping out

the various points at which decisions are made about neighbourhood design from national

policy to the level of the site. It ends by identifying the key points at which evidence on design

value might be used to influence development, while also highlighting the key groups whose

decisions influence design outcomes.

To understand how to influence design at the neighbourhood scale it is important to first

understand who makes design decisions. The following groups of actors are some of the key

decision makers (it is important to note that this review demonstrates that each of these groups

are already actively involved in implementing and collecting evidence on design value):

• National policymakers influence design by setting national standards and policy which

guides all development. They also commonly commission and publish evidence

relating to design value and support organisations or programmes designed to improve

design value. Finally, they set the political context in which design takes place. For

example, specifying whether funding programmes should be tied to design outcomes

or processes.

• Local government officers also have a major role in making decisions related to

residential design value at a neighbourhood scale, through the planning process,

design review, local design guides, and applying national standards (DCLG 2016).


Local government can also act as a residential developer or can commission

development thus providing another way to influence design.

• Local government councillors play a major role in guiding development locally, in

particular by making decisions on individual applications. We identified several sources

which explicitly aim to influence them through training materials or guidance on

incorporating design in decision-making (CABE, 2003a; LGA et al., 2015).

• Social Value and other kinds of value could be promoted by local authorities through

the procurement of buildings. Social Value legislation has been left purposefully loose

to enable different kinds of social value to be taken into account in public procurement.

• National and local design bodies and consultancies also play a key role in influencing

design. This may be through publishing best practice or it may be through providing

consultancy or design review services. Some national and local policy explicitly

recommends working with these bodies (DCLG, 2012).

• The development industry also has a key role to play. Punter (2010) argues that there

was an attempt during the height of the urban renaissance discourse, “to sell the value

of good design to all major actors in the development process, but particularly to

persuade the development industry that it is in their interests to raise design standards”

(p. 360). This approach continues today, but is more uneven.

Finally, while we are primarily focused on the main decision-makers, it is also worth noting

that the expectations of the public are also important determinants of design as they set

priorities for national and local politicians (Design Council, 2018). This is the central focus of

neighbourhood planning in England. Thus, it is also important to try both learn from and

influence the general public discourse around design value. Indeed, it is also important not to

understand design value as something which stems only from a ‘top down’ approach. This

project makes an assumption that influencing decision-makers is the most effective way to

influence design value on a wide scale, however this does not imply that these actors are

necessarily ‘best’ at guiding design.

Design value in government policy and guidance

The fact that development rights are governed by planning policy means it is sometimes

relatively easy to show how government promotes design value through policy. And, since

policy is supposed to be informed by evidence, we can in some cases chart a direct line from

evidence on design value to promoting design value in practice. The planning system is one

of the main ways of influencing the design of residential developments, especially at the


neighbourhood scale. Changes to the policy and guidance that makes up this system could

have wide ranging impacts on design value. Indeed, several research papers in this review

were commissioned or conducted by government at least in part to feed into policy (Morris

Hargreaves McIntyre, 2006; GLA, 2010). Other sources identify planning policy as a key

mechanism to influence with their evidence (Design Council, 2017).

It is also important to highlight that the policy, guidance and other tools cited below are more

influential where they ‘have teeth’. This may mean making them compulsory, for example

Design and Access Statements are necessary for submitting major applications in Wales

(Welsh Government, 2017), and BREEAM Communities assessments are required for all

‘super major’ developments by Bristol City Council (BREEAM, 2018). Or they can be made a

condition of funding, for example Building for Life used to be a compulsory requirement for

some public funding building programmes.

7.1.1. National policy

Scottish Planning Policy makes it clear that design permeates all levels of planning:

“The design-led approach should be applied at all levels - at the national level in the NPF, at

the regional level in strategic development plans, at the local level in local development plans

and at site and individual building level within master plans that respond to how people use

public spaces” (Scottish Government, 2014, para 39).

In England, the NPPF has a chapter on design, emphasising that “The creation of high quality

buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should

achieve.” (MHCLG, 2018, p. 124). As noted in the previous section, Design and Access

Statements are compulsory for some developments in Wales (Welsh Government, 2017).

The following , reproduced from Building for Life 12, shows the clear links between design

guidance and official policy in England.


Figure 1 Building for Life 12 and compliance with English National Planning Policy (reproduced from Birkbeck & Kruczkowski, 2015)

7.1.2. Local planning

Local planning policy also plays a key role in influencing design. Indeed, some national

planning policy explicitly says that it is more appropriate to determined design policy and

guidance at the local level (DCLG, 2017). A review of local planning policy was beyond the

scope of this exercise (this limitation is discussed further in the conclusion). At the local level,

neighbourhood plans and community-led design codes can also have an important role in

shaping design.

7.1.3. Planning guidance

National and local guidance are also key ways to influence design. We reviewed a number of

pieces of national guidance as part of this review (DCLG, 2014; Scottish Government, 2013).

There are many types of guidance in each country and each represents an opportunity to feed

in evidence on design value. For example, in Scotland, guidance may include design


frameworks, development briefs, master plans for a specific site, design guides or design

statements (Scottish Government, 2014).

A large number of examples of local planning guidance were identified in our original search

for grey literature. As intimated above, we decided to exclude them from this review because

including them would have demanded too much resource. However, they may be an

interesting focus for future research on design value.

7.1.4. Standards

Housing designers have to comply with an extensive range of standards and codes. Minimum

standards are used to indicate prescriptive guidelines on minimum requirements for residential

design, for example room sizes. Since standards often apply at the building level they are

perhaps less relevant in this review; however, they do certainly operate at a neighbourhood

scale. For example, with respect to standards on the total amount of units in an area (CABE,

2010b). Technical standards may also come from outside Government, for example from the

International Standards Organisation (ISO) (APPG BE).

Carmona and De Magalhães (2009) emphasise the role of standards for assessing urban

space quality. Starting from a dictionary definition of standards, they define standards as tools

that provide threshold levels, establish fixed and recognised values, require conformity, and

provide a basis for judgement. A report from CABE also presented the idea of using minimum

standards for site layouts and home design as a key way to improve the design of new housing

areas (CABE, 2010a). Carmona and De Magalhães (2009) also highlight the dilemma of using

standards, asking the question: “are standards about establishing levels of excellence, or

simply the minimum acceptable norms; in other words, are they a safety net or a springboard

to excellence?” (p. 520).

Some of the sources we reviewed suggest that standards and hard evidence may be closely

linked. The development of standards can be a creative act based on professional judgment

(Imrie and Street, 2009). While the subjective element of ‘design value’ makes it difficult to

provide specific evidence, standards may be more likely to be introduced where the evidence

is clearer. The evidence base for the Greater London Authority’s Housing Design Standards

(GLA, 2010), for example, is mostly made up of evidence on technical standards.


7.1.5. Other tools used to inform policy and guidance

Tools produced by non-governmental actors also have a major influence on neighbourhood

design, and attempt to base themselves on the best evidence. We have discussed Building

for Life in the latter half of this report. We also identified several other sources, for example

Urban Design Lessons (HCA, 2014) and The Councillors Guide to Urban Design (CABE,

2003a). BREEAM highlight the potential influence of these tools on local policy, by presenting

their Communities tool as “an internationally recognised set of outcomes that the planning

authority can use to define sustainable development at the neighbourhood scale” (BREEAM,

2018). The English National Planning Policy Framework advises that local authorities should

identify and use tools like these (MHCLG, 2018, p.129).

Where to promote design value in practice

As discussed in Section 2.3, at least part of design value can be found in good design practice.

Therefore, understanding how design value is promoted in practice is key to understanding

where evidence is needed, what kind of evidence is needed, and for whom. The sources we

reviewed highlighted several points through the development process at which design value

could be promoted. Each of these represent another potential way for evidence on design

value to have an impact.

7.2.1. Involving well-qualified professionals and providing training

Many of the sources we reviewed highlighted the importance of having suitably skilled

individuals making decisions about design (Jenkins et al., 2008). This means both valuing the

expertise of specialists and seeking to improve the general level of skills for practitioners

engaging with design (Design Council, 2017; Wheeler et al., 2014).. As discussed in 7.2.5,

resource constraints challenge the ability of built environment professionals to deliver quality

design (White 2015).

Given that there is also a need for non-experts to be involved, there was also a widespread

call for more and better training for those making decisions about design (HCA, 2010; HM

Government, 2011; APPG BE, 2016). Several sources emphasise that local authority

councillors, in particular, need this training (CABE 2003a; Building for Life, 2005). Without an

evidence base on what works and a paucity of post occupancy evaluation decisions about

design value, reliance largely rests on professional judgment (Wheeler, 2014, p. 35).


7.2.2. Promoting proper community participation

Early, consistent and realistic consultation with key stakeholders and the local community was

seen as a key way of promoting design (MHCLG, 2018, p. 127; Welsh Government, 2017).

This applies both when pursuing major developments and when developing development plan

documents. This is particularly important since there can be high divergence in perceptions of

design value between professionals and the public (Wheeler et al., 2014).

7.2.3. Influencing public procurement

Public authorities, especially local authorities, were seen as having an important influence

through their own engagement with residential development. As the LGA (2015, p.53) notes:

“Everyone who makes policy, shapes opinion, sets budgets, makes decisions, selects

designers, writes briefs or assesses proposals can play a part in raising design standards”.

As commissioners of housing development, they can choose architects and contractors based

on evidence of design quality and can set high standards in briefs (Welsh Government, 2011).

They can also use their position as landowners to promote high design quality on housing

developments using that land (HCA, 2010).

Several sources highlighted public procurement as a key stage at which to embed design

value (Farrell et al., 2014; Scottish Government, 2013b; Wheeler, 2014). The recent CIC

report Procuring for Value foregrounds the importance of social value for the building industry.

Indeed it recommends that “[t]o capture the maximum benefit that projects or programmes

can achieve, the definition of Value must be expanded” to include areas such as design quality

and social value (Bentley, 2018, p.15). This was also raised during our stakeholder review

event, where attendees raised other examples including the Scottish Circular Procurement

Strategy (Scottish Government, 2016).

Samuel (2018a) reports that ‘traditional’ contracts where the architect leads the team and

ensures that the design vision is fulfilled are now rarely used. Very often architects and urban

designers are now employed solely for the planning stage with the responsibility for the

execution of the design resting with the contractor. The client can be at some distance from

the process. A result can be a lack of stewardship for the design vision with design quality

being significantly eroded during the ‘Value Management’ phase (Ibid, 2018).


7.2.4. Early design stage

As discussed at various points in this review, design reviews were seen as a key way to embed

design value (DCfW, 2018; HoL NPBE, 2016; Farrell et al., 2014). Good practice guides were

also seen as a route to influencing design at the early design stage (Architecture & Design

Scotland, 2018; Gulliver and Tolson, 2013). Several sources also supported the use of design

codes developed through engagement with local communities (DCLG, 2017, Farrell et al.,

2014).

7.2.5. Planning application stage

The planning system plays a key role in influencing design, and the application stage is an

important time for any development. Many of the sources we reviewed were designed to guide

the application decision-making process. At this stage, local planning authorities can influence

design through pre-application consultation, rejecting applications with poor design, planning

conditions, and other design advice and review arrangements (Birkbeck and Kruczkowski,

2015; MHCLG, 2018; LGA et al., 2015). Several sources also noted that resource challenges

were impacting the ability of local planning authorities to embed design value (Design Council,

2017; HoL NPBE, 2016). As the Farrell review puts it, the discretionary planning system is a

great way to embed design value, but “we have also deprived society of the resources to deal

with and manage this very labour-consuming approach” (Farrell et al., 2014, p71).

7.2.6. Build stage

Design value can be eroded significantly through value management during the technical

design stage. This is the process by which elements of the building design are removed or

exchanged for cheaper alternatives in order to hit budget targets. Some forms of building

contract (for example Design and Build) mean that there is little continuity of responsibility for

achieving the design vision, the result often being a loss of quality (Samuel, 2018a). Design

value can also be influenced during the build stage, for example through the use of design risk

reviews (Welsh Government, 2011) and effective project management (OGC, 2007).

7.2.7. Monitoring and assessment after completion

Finally, design can be promoted through a better system of monitoring new housing

developments after completion, for example through greater use of Post Occupancy

Evaluation (MHCLG, 2018; APPG BE, 2016); OGC 2007). This also goes for wider scale


monitoring, for example local authorities in Scotland are assessed on design performance

through the Planning Performance Framework Assessment (Scottish Government, 2018)

Section summary

To influence design it is crucial to understand the different actors and processes involved in

the complex process of planning and designing new neighbourhoods.

A range of actors make decisions about design, including national policymakers, local

government officers and councillors, national and local design bodies and consultancies, and

the development industry. The public can also influence design, either by feeding into the

planning process (e.g. through local decisions and design codes), or by setting expectations

of elected officials.

Central and local government policy and guidance is a key way in which design value can

influence practice. Design value can also be promoted through: the effective deployment of

high-quality design professionals, community consultation; procurement; codes, regulations

and guidance; design review; the planning application stage; effective project management as

well as monitoring and assessment after completion.

8. Conclusions

This review has used academic and grey literature on design value to summarise how the

concept is understood, measured and promoted in a neighbourhood context. This is an

essential first step towards developing an accessible evidence base on design value which

can ultimately help promote well-designed neighbourhoods.

The search methodology has captured a wide range of perspectives on neighbourhood design

value, with neighbourhood defined provisionally as a conglomeration of over 10 homes. It is

not, however, a comprehensive account of the design value discourse and has significant

gaps, notably in technical design and the procurement of value within construction teams.

A working definition of design value?

Until the impact of design value is better understood, it is necessary to develop a working

definition of design value that can be used by the profession and policy makers for the purpose

of benchmarking, maintaining standards and institutional learning. Although not an immediate

focus of our review, we would argue that it is also important that design value be included in


cost benefit analysis, economic modelling and the digital programmes that will increasingly

take over the design of the built environment. Definitions are necessary at this point in time to

‘externalise’ the importance of design value in the context of a policy landscape that places

considerable value on ‘well-designed places’ and ‘good design’. Bowker and Leigh Star note

that orderings are always culturally and temporally specific and therefore need to be constantly

under review (1999, p. 32).

Based on the review above we suggest that the following points provide a working definition

of design value at a neighbourhood scale:

• A neighbourhood focus goes beyond the narrow strictures of a building or site, but also

limits the focus to an area which can be influenced by the design of individual sites.

• Design value can be found in both processes and outcomes.

• Design value has social, economic and environmental dimensions (which also

encompass further sub-dimensions such as culture, use, etc.). The three dimensions

must all be taken into account, with care not to be biased towards those which can be

measured most easily.

• Design value is at least in part subjective, and accordingly we should draw on a variety

of types of evidence, and the views of a range of stakeholders including crucially the

users of housing.

Developing an accessible evidence base on design value

The lack of measurement tools for design value and analysis of design value metrics makes

it challenging to develop a comprehensive evidence base on design value. We nevertheless

argue that the following steps would provide a useful start:

• A review of existing evidence on how design influences each of the metrics described

in Chapter 5, and any other key metrics which emerge from that review.

• The development of a robust valuation method(s), possibly with economic valuation

including social return on investment, and a way of assessing how well developments

contribute to national and local social objectives.

Reflecting on the evidence collected in this review, we contend that leadership is needed to

ensure that better evidence is collected on design value. This might include promoting:


• The wider use of pre- and post-development design review and recorded outcomes

from design review processes.

• The standardisation and collection of currently ad-hoc records of design value by

practitioners. Possibly by increased and improved use of digital technology.

• The much wider use of post-occupancy evaluation (POE) to greatly increase

understanding of user experience. We would argue that POE is central to the

development of an accessible evidence base on design value. To widen the use of

POE we argue that it could be incentivised through government procurement

processes as, to date, the private sector has conspicuously failed to deliver POE.

• A scholarly focus on conducting wider audits of multiple housing neighbourhoods in

contexts where design is both a guiding principle (i.e. perceived best practice) and on

more standardised new housing development.

Robust systems and methodologies are needed to allow for the collection of such data and its

translation into guidance and learning. It will also be important to understand who the evidence

is aimed at and how best to reach them


9. References

ALZAHRANI, A., BORSI, K. & JARMAN, D. 2017. Place-making and its implications for social

value: A comparison study of two urban squares in London. International Journal of

Sustainable Development and Planning, 12, 752-762.

APPG BE. 2016. More Homes Fewer Complaints. All Party Parliamentary Group for

Excellence in the Built Environment. Available at: http://cic.org.uk/download.php?f=more-

homes.-fewer-complaints.pdf.

APPG EiBE. 2016. More Homes Fewer Complaints. APPG for Excellence in the Built

Environment. Available at: http://cic.org.uk/services/reports.php.

ARCHITECTURE+DESIGN SCOTLAND. 2013. “Response to the Scottish Government's

consultation on a draft Scottish Planning Policy 2013”. Available at:

https://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00431634.pdf.

ARCHITECTURE+DESIGN SCOTLAND. 2018. Key Placemaking Issues (website).

Architecture & Design Scotland. Available at: https://www.ads.org.uk/key-placemaking-

issues-overview/.

BENTLEY, A. 2018. Procuring for Value, CIC. Available at:

http://www.constructionleadershipcouncil.co.uk/news/procuring-for-value/

BICHARD, E. & HIGHAM, P. 2018. The Real Value Report: Establishing the real value of

development. Trowers & Hamlins. Available at:

https://www.trowers.com/uploads/Files/Publications/2018/The_Real_Value_Report_-

_Full_Report_DIGITAL.pdf

BIRKBECK, D. & KRUCZKOWSKI, S. 2015. Building for Life 12. Nottingham Trent

University on behalf of Building for Life partnership. Available at:

https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/guide/building-life-12-third-edition.

BOWIE, D. & ATKINS, J. 2010. Measuring housing design value. London Metropolitan

University. Available at:

https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/item/904ww/measuring-housing-design-and-

value.

BOWKER, G. C. & LEIGH STAR,S.1999. Sorting things out: classification and its

consequences.Cambridge:MIT.

BREEAM. 2017. BREEAM Communities: technical manual: SD202 – 1.2: 2012. BREEAM.

BREEAM, 2018. BREEAM Communities: Integrating sustainable design into

masterplanning. BREEAM. Available at:

https://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/pdf/Brochures/BREEAM_Communities.pdf

http://cic.org.uk/download.php?f=more-homes.-fewer-complaints.pdf


http://cic.org.uk/services/reports.php

https://www.ads.org.uk/key-placemaking-issues-overview/


https://www.trowers.com/uploads/Files/Publications/2018/The_Real_Value_Report_-_Full_Report_DIGITAL.pdf


https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/guide/building-life-12-third-edition

https://www.breeam.com/communitiesmanual/#resources/otherformats/output/10_pdf/20_a4_pdf_screen/sd202_breeam_communities_1.2_screen.pdf

https://www.bre.co.uk/filelibrary/pdf/Brochures/BREEAM_Communities.pdf


BRIGINSHAW, J. 2015. HCA. Design quality and sustainability - a new future. Homes and

Communities Agency. Available at:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_da

ta/file/430545/10._Jane_Briginshaw_-_HCA.pdf.

BUILDING FOR LIFE. 2005. Building for Life: better neighbourhoods, making higher

densities work, literature review. Building for Life. Available at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118185903/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/bett

er-neighbourhoods-review.pdf.

BUILDING WITH NATURE. 2018. Building with Nature Homepage (website). Available at:

https://www.buildingwithnature.org.uk/. Accessed 17.10.18.

BURNS, K., KAHN, A. 2005, Site Matters, London, Routledge.

CABE. 2001a. The Value of Urban Design. Thomas Telford.

CABE. 2001b. By Design: urban design in the planning system: towards better practice. UK

Department for Environment, Transport & Regions. Available at:

https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/by-design_0.pdf.

CABE. 2002. “The Value of Good Design.”. CABE.

CABE. 2003a. The councillor's guide to urban design. CABE. Available at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118185845/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/cou

ncillors-guide-to-urban-design.pdf.

CABE. 2003b. The value of housing design and layout. Thomas Telford Ltd. Available at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118112136/http://www.cabe.org.uk/publicati

ons/the-value-of-housing-design-and-layout.

CABE. 2006a. The cost of bad design. CABE. Available at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118134605/http://www.cabe.org.uk/files/the-

cost-of-bad-design.pdf

CABE. 2006b. “Creating successful neighbourhoods: lessons and actions for housing

market renewal”. CABE. Available at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118160021/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/crea

ting-successful-neighbourhoods.pdf.

CABE. 2010a. Improving the quality of new housing: technical background paper. CABE.

Available at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118110910/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/impr

oving-the-quality-of-new-housing.pdf.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/430545/10._Jane_Briginshaw_-_HCA.pdf


http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118185903/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/better-neighbourhoods-review.pdf


https://www.buildingwithnature.org.uk/

https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/by-design_0.pdf

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118112136/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/publications/the-value-of-housing-design-and-layout


http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118160021/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/creating-successful-neighbourhoods.pdf


http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118110910/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/improving-the-quality-of-new-housing.pdf



CABE. 2010b. “Space Standards: the benefits”. CABE. Available at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118111541/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/spac

e-standards-the-benefits.pdf.

CABE. 2010c. People and Place: Public Attitudes to Beauty. CABE. Available at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/publicati

ons/people-and-places

CARMONA, M. 2014. Does urban design add value? Explorations in Urban Design: An Urban

Design Research Primer.

CARMONA, M. 2018. Place value: place quality and its impact on health, social, economic

and environmental outcomes. Journal of Urban Design, 1-48.

CARMONA, M. & DE MAGALHÃES, C. 2009. Local environmental quality: establishing

acceptable standards in England. Town Planning Review, 80, 517-548.

CARMONA, M., DE MAGALHAES, C. & EDWARDS, M. 2002a. Stakeholder views on value

and urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 7, 145-169.

CARMONA, M., MAGALHÃES, C. D. & EDWARDS, M. 2002b. What value urban design?

URBAN DESIGN International, 7, 63-81.

CHIARADIA, A. J. F., SIEH, L. & PLIMMER, F. 2017. Values in urban design: A design studio

teaching approach. Design Studies, 49, 66-100.

CHO, I. S., TRIVIC, Z. & NASUTION, I. 2015. Towards an Integrated Urban Space Framework

for Emerging Urban Conditions in a High-density Context. Journal of Urban Design, 20, 147-

168.

CLARK, J. & KEARNS, A. 2012. Housing Improvements, Perceived Housing Quality and

Psychosocial Benefits From the Home. Housing Studies, 27, 7, 915–939.

CONSTRUCTION PROCUREMENT STRATEGY STEERING GROUP. 2011. Construction

Procurement Strategy - Executive Summary and Action Plan. Welsh Government. Available

at: http://prp.gov.wales/docs/prp/toolkit/130719constructionprocurementstrategyeng.doc.

DAWSON, E. & HIGGINS, M. 2009. How planning authorities can improve quality through the

design review process: Lessons from Edinburgh. Journal of Urban Design, 14, 101-114.

DCAL. 2006. Architecture and the built environment in Northern Ireland. NI Dept for Culture

Arts and Leisure.

DCfW. 2018. About. Design Council for Wales. Available at: https://dcfw.org/about/

DCLG. 2012. 2012 National Planning Policy Framework. UK Ministry for Communities and

Local Government (now MHCLG). Available at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20180608095821/https://www.gov.uk/government/

publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118111541/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/space-standards-the-benefits.pdf


http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/publications/people-and-places

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/publications/people-and-places

http://prp.gov.wales/docs/prp/toolkit/130719constructionprocurementstrategyeng.doc

https://dcfw.org/about/

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20180608095821/https:/www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2



DCLG. 2014. Planning Practice Guidance: Design. UK Ministry for Communities and Local

Government (now MHCLG). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/design.

DCLG. 2016. Estate Regeneration National Strategy. UK Ministry for Housing, Communities

and Local Government. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/estate-regeneration-

national-strategy.

DCLG. 2017. Fixing our broken housing market. UK Ministry for Communities and Local

Government (now MHCLG). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fixing-

our-broken-housing-market.

DEVINE-WRIGHT, P., 2014. ‘Low carbon heating and older adults: comfort, cosiness and

glow’, Building Research and Information, 42, 3, 288-299.

Design Council. 2017. “Purposeful design for homes and communities: design council

response to the Housing White Paper”. Available at:

https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/report/purposeful-design-homes-and-

communities.

DESIGN COUNCIL. 2018. Healthy Placemaking. Available at:

https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/report/healthy-placemaking-report

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT NORTHERN IRELAND. 2015. Strategic Planning

Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS). Belfast: Department of the Environment.

DEPARMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT NORTHERN IRELAND. 2014. Living Places: An

Urban Stewardship and Design Guide for Northern Ireland. Belfast: Department of the

Environment. Available at: https://www.planningni.gov.uk/livingplaces_-_web.pdf

DEWULF, G. & VAN MEEL, J. 2004. Sense and nonsense of measuring design quality.

Building Research & Information, 32, 247-250.

Dittmar, Hank, Gail Mayhew, James Hulme, and Christine Goupil. 2007. Valuing sustainable

urbanism. The Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment. Available at:

https://www.ads.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/0707vsureport_0.pdf.

EAGLE, M. 2006. Foreward to Architecture and the Built Environment for Northern Ireland.

Department for Culture, Arts and Leisure (NI). Available at: https://www.communities-

ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/dcal/dcal-architecture-and-built-environment-policy-

document.pdf.

ELEY, J. 2004. Design quality in buildings. Building Research and Information, 32, 255-260.

FARRELL, T., FARRELL, M. & PEEL, C. 2014. The Farrell Review of architecture and the

built environment. UK Department for Culture, Media & Sport. Available at:

http://www.farrellreview.co.uk/download.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/design

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/estate-regeneration-national-strategy


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fixing-our-broken-housing-market


https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/report/purposeful-design-homes-and-communities



https://www.ads.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/0707vsureport_0.pdf

https://www.communities-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/publications/dcal/dcal-architecture-and-built-environment-policy-document.pdf



http://www.farrellreview.co.uk/download


FRANKLIN, B. J. 2001. Discourses of Design: Perspectives on the Meaning of Housing

Quality and ?Good? Housing Design. Housing, Theory and Society, 18, 79-92.

FUJIWARA, D. 2014. The Social Impact of Housing Providers,

http://www.hact.org.uk/sites/default/files/uploads/Archives/2013/02/The%20Social%20Impac

t%20of%20Housing%20Providers%20report2013.pdf

GLA. 2010. Housing Design Standards Evidence Summary. Greater London Authority.

GULLIVER, S. & TOLSON, S. 2013. Delivering Great Places to Live: 10 Propositions aimed

at transforming Placemaking in Scotland. University of Glasgow and RICS Scotland.

Available at: https://www.ads.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/1384257756Creating-and-

Delivering-Great-Places-to-Live.pdf.

HACK, G. & SAGALYN, L. B. 2011. Value Creation Through Urban Design. In: TIESDEL, S.

& ADAMS, D. (eds.) Urban Design in the Real Estate Development Process. Wiley.

HAY, R., SAMUEL, F., WATSON, K.J. &BRADBURY, S. 2017. Post-occupancy evaluation

in architecture: experiences and perspectives from the UK, Building Research and

Information, 46, 6, 698-710.

HCA. 2010. HCA Proposed Core Housing Design and Sustainability Standards Consultation.

Homes and Communities Agency. Available at:

https://www.levittbernstein.co.uk/site/assets/files/1546/dwellingspacecalculator.pdf.

HCA. 2011. Housing Quality Indicators. Housing Quality Indicators. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-quality-indicators.

HCA. 2014. Urban design lessons: housing layout and neighbourhood quality. Homes and



ta/file/387979/Urban_Design_Lessons_Final.pdf.

HM GOVERNMENT. 2011. Laying the foundations: a housing strategy for England. HM

Government. Available at:


ta/file/7532/2033676.pdf.

HM TREASURY, 2018. The Green Book: Central government guidance on appraisal and

evaluation.


ta/file/685903/The_Green_Book.pdf

HoC Library. 2017. New Housing Design. Debate Pack, House of Commons Library.

Available at: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2017-

0153#fullreport.

https://www.ads.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/1384257756Creating-and-Delivering-Great-Places-to-Live.pdf


https://www.levittbernstein.co.uk/site/assets/files/1546/dwellingspacecalculator.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-quality-indicators

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/387979/Urban_Design_Lessons_Final.pdf


https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7532/2033676.pdf


https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2017-0153#fullreport



HoL NPBE. 2016. Building Better Places. House of Lords Select Committee on National

Policy for the Built Environment. Available at:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldbuilt/100/100.pdf.

IMRIE, R. & STREET, E. 2009. Risk, Regulations and the Practices of Architecture.Urban

Studies, 46, 12, 2555-2576.

Jenkins, P., Morgan, J., Smith, H., McLachlan, F. & Garcia-Ferrari, S. 2008. Design at the

heart of housebuilding. Scottish Government. Available at:

https://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/202545/0054006.pdf.

KHAN, A. Z., MOULAERT, F., SCHREURS, J. & MICIUKIEWICZ, K. 2014. Integrative Spatial

Quality: A Relational Epistemology of Space and Transdisciplinarity in Urban Design and

Planning. Journal of Urban Design, 19, 393-411.

LGA, PAS, CABE, & DESIGN COUNCIL. 2015. Design training for councillors: online self-

service learning tool. Local Government Association; Planning Advisory Service; CABE;

Design Council, January. Available at:

https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/design-training-councillo-b8b.pdf.

LIPTON, S. 2002. “Introduction.” In The Value of Good Design: how buildings and spaces

create economic and social value.CABE.

MACMILLAN, S. 2006. Added value of good design. Building Research and Information, 34,

257-271.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING, COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MHCLG). 2018.

National Planning Policy Framework. London: HM Government.

MORRIS HARGREAVES MCINTYRE. 2006. A Literature Review of the Social, Economic

and Environmental Impact of Architecture and Design. Scottish Government. Available at:


NAO. 2005. Getting value for money from construction projects through design. National

Audit Office. Available at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118174844/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/getti

ng-value-for-money-from-construction-projects-through-design.pdf.

NASE, I., BERRY, J. & ADAIR, A. 2015. Urban design quality and real estate value: in search

of a methodological framework. Journal of Urban Design, 20, 563-581.

NASE, I., BERRY, J. & ADAIR, A. 2016. Impact of quality-led design on real estate value: a

spatiotemporal analysis of city centre apartments. Journal of Property Research, 33, 309-331.

OGC. 2007. Project procurement lifecycle, the integrated process. Office of Government

Commerce. Available at:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldbuilt/100/100.pdf

https://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/202545/0054006.pdf

https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/design-training-councillo-b8b.pdf


http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100505185502/http:/www.ogc.gov.uk/document

s/CP0063AEGuide3.pdf.

PUNTER, J. 2010. Planning and good design: Indivisible or invisible? A century of design

regulation in English town and country planning. Town Planning Review, 81, 343-380.

PUNTER, J. 2011. Urban design and the english urban renaissance 1999-2009: A review and

preliminary evaluation. Journal of Urban Design, 16, 1-41.

ROWLEY, A. 1998. Private-property decision makers and the quality of urban design. Journal

of Urban Design, 3, 151-173.

RIBA/UNIVERSITY OF READING, 2017. Building Knowledge: Pathways to Post Occupancy

Evaluation. Available at: https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/resources-

landing-page/post-occupancy-evaluation

RTPI. 2016. Poverty, Place and Inequality. Royal Town Planning Institute. Available at:

http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/1811222/poverty_place_and_inequality.pdf.

SAMUEL, F., AWAN, N., BUTTERWORTH, C., HANDLER, S. & LINTONBON, J. 2014.

Cultural Value of Architecture in Homes and Neighbourhoods Project Report. Available

at:https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.384071!/file/CuluralValueReport.pdf

SAMUEL, F. 2018a. Why Architects Matter: Evidencing and Communicating the Value of

Architects. London: Routledge.

SAMUEL, F. 2018b, ‘Promoting Design Value in Public Rented Housing: An English

Perspective’, UK Collaborative Housing Evidence Centre, CACHE.

http://housingevidence.ac.uk/wp-

content/uploads/2018/10/R2018_SHPWG_01_Promoting_Design_Value.pdf

SAVILLS. 2015. Redefining Density: Making the best use of London's land to build more and

better homes. Savills and London First. Available at:

https://research.euro.savills.co.uk/pdfs/redefining-density-joint-report-with-london-first.pdf.

SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE. 2006. A Literature Review of the Social, Economic and

Environmental Impact of Design. Available at:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/137370/0034117.pdf

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT. 2010. Designing Streets: a policy statement for Scotland.

Scottish Government. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/Publications/2010/03/22120652/7.

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT. 2013a. Creating Places - A policy statement on architecture

and place for Scotland. Scottish Government.

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT. 2013b. “Review of Scottish Public Sector Procurement in

Construction”. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00436662.pdf.

http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/1811222/poverty_place_and_inequality.pdf

https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.384071!/file/CuluralValueReport.pdf

https://research.euro.savills.co.uk/pdfs/redefining-density-joint-report-with-london-first.pdf

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/137370/0034117.pdf

https://www.gov.scot/Publications/2010/03/22120652/7

https://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00436662.pdf


SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT. 2014. Scottish Planning Policy. Scottish Government.

Available at: https://beta.gov.scot/publications/scottish-planning-policy/.

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT. 2016. “Making Things Last: a circular economy strategy for

Scotland”. Available at: https://beta.gov.scot/publications/making-things-last-circular-

economy-strategy-scotland/pages/6/

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT. 2018. “Promoting quality (website)”. Available at:

https://beta.gov.scot/policies/planning-architecture/promoting-quality/.

STEVENSON, F. & BABORSKA-NAROZNY, M.2016. ‘Resilience, redundancy and low-

carbon living: co-producing individual and community learning’, Building Research and

Information.

SERIN, B. 2018. Cross Disciplinary Review of Placemaking Literature: A Literature Mapping.

CaCHE Working Paper Series. The UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence

THOMSON, D. S., AUSTIN, S. A., DEVINE-WRIGHT, H. & MILLS, G. R. 2003. Managing

value and quality in design. Building Research and Information, 334-345.

THOMSON, D. S., AUSTIN, S. A., MILLS, G. R. & DEVINE-WRIGHT, H. 2013. Practitioner

understanding of value in the UK building sector. Engineering, Construction and Architectural

Management, 20, 214-231.

TIESDELL, S. & ADAMS, D. 2004. Design matters: major house builders and the design

challenge of brownfield development contexts. Journal of Urban Design, 9, 23-45.

UK GOVERNMENT, 2011, Public Services (Social Enterprises and Social Value Bill), ,

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmpublic/publicservices/111019/am/111019

s01.htm

URBAN LAND INSTITUTE, 2018. Supporting SMART urban development: Successful

investment in density. Available at: https://1jh8wu3evfwz3jruef1p1wj2-wpengine.netdna-

ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/127/ULI-

Documents/supporting_smart_urban_development_web.pdf

WATSON, K.J. &WHITLEY, T. 2016. Applying Social Return on Investment (SROI) to the Built

Environment, Building Research and Information. 45, 8, 875-891.

WATSON, K. J., EVANS, J., KARVONEN, A. & WHITLEY, T. 2014. Re-conceiving building

design quality: A review of building users in their social context. Indoor and Built Environment,

25, 509-523.

WELSH GOVERNMENT. 2016a. Technical Advice Note 12: Design. March 2016. Cardiff:

Welsh Government. Available at: https://gov.wales/docs/desh/publications/160504-technical-

advice-note-12-en.pdf

https://beta.gov.scot/publications/scottish-planning-policy/

https://beta.gov.scot/publications/making-things-last-circular-economy-strategy-scotland/pages/6/

https://beta.gov.scot/publications/making-things-last-circular-economy-strategy-scotland/pages/6/

https://beta.gov.scot/policies/planning-architecture/promoting-quality/

https://1jh8wu3evfwz3jruef1p1wj2-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/127/ULI-Documents/supporting_smart_urban_development_web.pdf



https://gov.wales/docs/desh/publications/160504-technical-advice-note-12-en.pdf

https://gov.wales/docs/desh/publications/160504-technical-advice-note-12-en.pdf


WELSH GOVERNMENT. 2016b. Well-being of Future Generations Act (Wales) 2015.

https://gov.wales/topics/people-and-communities/people/future-generations-act/?lang=en

WELSH GOVERNMENT. 2011. Construction Procurement Strategy - Executive Summary

and Action Plan. Construction Procurement Strategy Steering Group. Available at:

www.prp.gov.wales/docs/prp/toolkit/130719constructionprocurementstrategyeng.doc

WELSH GOVERNMENT. 2014. Delivering More Homes for Wales: report of the housing

supply task force. Cardiff: Welsh Government. Available at:

https://gov.wales/docs/desh/publications/140130delivering-more-homes-for-wales-en.pdf

WELSH GOVERNMENT. 2017. “Design and Access Statements in Wales: Why, What and

How.” Available at: https://gov.wales/docs/desh/publications/171009design-and-access-

statements-guidance-en.pdf.

Wheeler, D., Ross, G. & Robertson, M. 2014. Research Project to Establish the Value of

Design in the Built Environment (Scotland). Scottish Government. Available at:

https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20170106211734/http://www.gov.scot/Reso

urce/0045/00456567.pdf.

WILLCOCKS, M. 2017. Building social? More like designing to afford contestation. City, 21,

822-835.

10. APPENDIX 1 – List of Academic Publications (Journal Articles and Book Chapters)

ALZAHRANI, A., BORSI, K. & JARMAN, D. 2017. Place-making and its implications for social

value: A comparison study of two urban squares in London. International Journal of

Sustainable Development and Planning, 12, 752-762.

BIDDULPH, M. 2010. Evaluating the English home zone initiatives. Journal of the American

Planning Association, 76, 199-218.

CARMONA, M. 1998. Design control - bridging the professional divide, part 1: a new

framework. Journal of Urban Design, 3, 175-200.

CARMONA, M. 1998. Design control—bridging the professional divide, part 2: A new

consensus. Journal of Urban Design, 3, 331-358.

CARMONA, M. 2014. Does urban design add value? Explorations in Urban Design: An Urban

Design Research Primer.

CARMONA, M. 2014. The Place-shaping Continuum: A Theory of Urban Design Process.

Journal of Urban Design, 19, 2-36.

https://gov.wales/topics/people-and-communities/people/future-generations-act/?lang=en

http://www.prp.gov.wales/docs/prp/toolkit/130719constructionprocurementstrategyeng.doc


https://gov.wales/docs/desh/publications/171009design-and-access-statements-guidance-en.pdf

https://gov.wales/docs/desh/publications/171009design-and-access-statements-guidance-en.pdf

https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20170106211734/http:/www.gov.scot/Resource/0045/00456567.pdf



CARMONA, M. 2018. Place value: place quality and its impact on health, social, economic

and environmental outcomes. Journal of Urban Design, 1-48.

CARMONA, M. & DE MAGALHÃES, C. 2009. Local environmental quality: establishing

acceptable standards in England. Town Planning Review, 80, 517-548.

CARMONA, M., DE MAGALHAES, C. & EDWARDS, M. 2002. Stakeholder views on value

and urban design. Journal of Urban Design, 7, 145-169.

CARMONA, M., MAGALHÃES, C. D. & EDWARDS, M. 2002. What value urban design?

URBAN DESIGN International, 7, 63-81.

CHAPMAN, D. 2011. Engaging Places: Localizing Urban Design and Development Planning.

Journal of Urban Design, 16, 511-530.

CHIARADIA, A. J. F., SIEH, L. & PLIMMER, F. 2017. Values in urban design: A design studio

teaching approach. Design Studies, 49, 66-100.

CHO, I. S., TRIVIC, Z. & NASUTION, I. 2015. Towards an Integrated Urban Space Framework

for Emerging Urban Conditions in a High-density Context. Journal of Urban Design,

20, 147-168.

CLAYDEN, A., MCKOY, K. & WILD, A. 2006. Improving residential liveability in the UK: Home

zones and alternative approaches. Journal of Urban Design, 11, 55-71.

DAWSON, E. & HIGGINS, M. 2009. How planning authorities can improve quality through the

design review process: Lessons from edinburgh. Journal of Urban Design, 14, 101-

114.

DEWULF, G. & VAN MEEL, J. 2004. Sense and nonsense of measuring design quality.

Building Research & Information, 32, 247-250.

ELEY, J. 2004. Design quality in buildings. Building Research and Information, 32, 255-260.

FRANKLIN, B. J. 2001. Discourses of Design: Perspectives on the Meaning of Housing

Quality and ?Good? Housing Design. Housing, Theory and Society, 18, 79-92.

GIDDINGS, B., SHARMA, M., JONES, P. & JENSEN, P. 2013. An evaluation tool for design

quality: PFI sheltered housing. Building Research and Information, 41, 690-705.

HACK, G. & SAGALYN, L. B. 2011. Value Creation Through Urban Design. In: TIESDEL, S.

& ADAMS, D. (eds.) Urban Design in the Real Estate Development Process. Wiley.

IMRIE, R. 2004. The role of the building regulations in achieving housing quality. Environment

and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31, 419-437.

KENIGER, M. 2004. Achieving design quality: from intent to implementation. Building

Research & Information, 32, 251-254.

KHAN, A. Z., MOULAERT, F., SCHREURS, J. & MICIUKIEWICZ, K. 2014. Integrative Spatial

Quality: A Relational Epistemology of Space and Transdisciplinarity in Urban Design


and Planning. Journal of Urban Design, 19, 393-411.

LO, A. Y. 2012. The Encroachment of Value Pragmatism on Pluralism: The Practice of the

Valuation of Urban Green Space Using Stated-preference Approaches. International

Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 36, 121-135.

MACMILLAN, S. 2006. Added value of good design. Building Research and Information, 34,

257-271.

NASE, I., BERRY, J. & ADAIR, A. 2015. Urban design quality and real estate value: in search

of a methodological framework. Journal of Urban Design, 20, 563-581.

NASE, I., BERRY, J. & ADAIR, A. 2016. Impact of quality-led design on real estate value: a

spatiotemporal analysis of city centre apartments. Journal of Property Research, 33,

309-331.

PARK, S. 2014. The social dimension of urban design as a means of engendering community

engagement in urban regeneration. URBAN DESIGN International, 19, 177-185.

PUNTER, J. 2007. Design-led Regeneration? Evaluating the Design Outcomes of Cardiff Bay

and their Implications for Future Regeneration and Design. Journal of Urban Design,

12, 375-405.

PUNTER, J. 2010. Planning and good design: indivisible or invisible?: A century of design

regulation in English town and country planning. Town Planning Review, 81, 343-380.

PUNTER, J. 2010. The recession, housing quality and urban design. International Planning

Studies, 15, 245-263.

PUNTER, J. 2011. Urban Design and the English Urban Renaissance 1999–2009: A Review

and Preliminary Evaluation. Journal of Urban Design, 16, 1-41.

ROBERTS, M. 2007. Sharing Space: Urban Design and Social Mixing in Mixed Income New

Communities. Planning Theory & Practice, 8, 183-204.

ROWLEY, A. 1998. Private-property decision makers and the quality of urban design. Journal

of Urban Design, 3, 151-173.

THOMSON, D. S., AUSTIN, S. A., DEVINE-WRIGHT, H. & MILLS, G. R. 2003. Managing

value and quality in design. Building Research and Information, 334-345.

THOMSON, D. S., AUSTIN, S. A., MILLS, G. R. & DEVINE-WRIGHT, H. 2013. Practitioner

understanding of value in the UK building sector. Engineering, Construction and

Architectural Management, 20, 214-231.

TIESDELL, S. & ADAMS, D. 2004. Design matters: major house builders and the design

challenge of brownfield development contexts. Journal of Urban Design, 9, 23-45.

WATSON, K. J., EVANS, J., KARVONEN, A. & WHITLEY, T. 2014. Re-conceiving building

design quality: A review of building users in their social context. Indoor and Built


Environment, 25, 509-523.

WILLCOCKS, M. 2017. Building social? More like designing to afford contestation. City, 21,

822-835

11. APPENDIX 2 – Grey literature reviewed

APPG BE. 2016. More Homes Fewer Complaints. All Party Parliamentary Group for

Excellence in the Built Environment. Available at: http://cic.org.uk/download.php?f=more-

homes.-fewer-complaints.pdf.

APPG EiBE. 2016. More Homes Fewer Complaints. APPG for Excellence in the Built

Environment. Available at: http://cic.org.uk/services/reports.php.

ARCHITECTURE+DESIGN SCOTLAND. 2012. “A&DS submission to the consultation on

architecture and place 2012”. Available at: https://www.ads.org.uk/ads-submission-to-the-

consultation-on-architecture-and-place-2012-pdf/

ARCHITECTURE+DESIGN SCOTLAND. 2013. “Response to the Scottish Government's

consultation on a draft Scottish Planning Policy 2013”. Available at:

https://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00431634.pdf.

ARCHITECTURE+DESIGN SCOTLAND. 2018. Key Placemaking Issues (website).

Architecture & Design Scotland. Available at: https://www.ads.org.uk/key-placemaking-

issues-overview/. Accessed on 27.09.18.

BICHARD, E. & HIGHAM, P. 2018. The Real Value Report: Establishing the real value of

development. Trowers & Hamlins. Available at:

https://www.trowers.com/uploads/Files/Publications/2018/The_Real_Value_Report_-

_Full_Report_DIGITAL.pdf

BIRKBECK, D. & KRUCZKOWSKI, S. 2015. Building for Life 12. Nottingham Trent

University on behalf of Building for Life partnership. Available at:

https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/guide/building-life-12-third-edition.

BRIGINSHAW, J. 2015. HCA. Design quality and sustainability - a new future. Homes and

Communities Agency. Available

at:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_

data/file/430545/10._Jane_Briginshaw_-_HCA.pdf.

BUILDING FOR LIFE. 2005. Building for Life: better neighbourhoods, making higher

densities work, literature review. Building for Life. Available at:



http://cic.org.uk/services/reports.php

https://www.ads.org.uk/ads-submission-to-the-consultation-on-architecture-and-place-2012-pdf/

https://www.ads.org.uk/ads-submission-to-the-consultation-on-architecture-and-place-2012-pdf/





https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/guide/building-life-12-third-edition




http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118185903/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/bett

er-neighbourhoods-review.pdf.

CABE. 2001a. The Value of Urban Design. Thomas Telford.

CABE. 2001b. By Design: urban design in the planning system: towards better practice. UK

Department for Environment, Transport & Regions. Available at:

https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/by-design_0.pdf.

CABE. 2002. “The Value of Good Design”. CABE.

CABE. 2003a. The councillor's guide to urban design. CABE. Available at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118185845/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/cou

ncillors-guide-to-urban-design.pdf.

CABE. 2003b. The value of housing design and layout. Thomas Telford Ltd. Available at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118112136/http://www.cabe.org.uk/publicati

ons/the-value-of-housing-design-and-layout.

CABE. 2004. Housing audit: assessing the design quality of new homes. Available at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118142546/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/hou

sing-audit-2004.pdf

CABE. 2006a. The cost of bad design. CABE. Available at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118134605/http://www.cabe.org.uk/files/the-

cost-of-bad-design.pdf

CABE. 2006. “Creating successful neighbourhoods: lessons and actions for housing market

renewal”. CABE. Available at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118160021/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/crea

ting-successful-neighbourhoods.pdf.

CABE. 2010a. Improving the quality of new housing: technical background paper. CABE.

Available at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118110910/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/impr

oving-the-quality-of-new-housing.pdf.

CABE. 2010b. “Space Standards: the benefits”. CABE. Available at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118111541/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/spac

e-standards-the-benefits.pdf.

CONSTRUCTION PROCUREMENT STRATEGY STEERING GROUP. 2011. Construction

Procurement Strategy - Executive Summary and Action Plan. Welsh Government. Available

at: http://prp.gov.wales/docs/prp/toolkit/130719constructionprocurementstrategyeng.doc.

DCAL. 2006. Architecture and the built environment in Northern Ireland. NI Dept for Culture

Arts and Leisure.



https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/by-design_0.pdf



http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118142546/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/housing-audit-2004.pdf

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118142546/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/housing-audit-2004.pdf







http://prp.gov.wales/docs/prp/toolkit/130719constructionprocurementstrategyeng.doc


DCfW. 2018. About. Design Council for Wales. Available at: https://dcfw.org/about/

DCLG. 2012. 2012 National Planning Policy Framework. UK Ministry for Communities and

Local Government (now MHCLG). Available at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20180608095821/https://www.gov.uk/government/

publications/national-planning-policy-framework--2.

DCLG. 2014. Planning Practice Guidance: Design. UK Ministry for Communities and Local

Government (now MHCLG). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/design.

DCLG. 2016. Estate Regeneration National Strategy. UK Ministry for Housing, Communities

and Local Government. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/estate-regeneration-

national-strategy.

DCLG. 2017. Fixing our broken housing market. UK Ministry for Communities and Local

Government (now MHCLG). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fixing-

our-broken-housing-market.

DCLG. 2017. Planning for the right homes in the right places. UK Ministry for Communities

and Local Government (now MHCLG). Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/planning-for-the-right-homes-in-the-right-

places-consultation-proposals

Design Council. 2013. Design review: principles and practice. Available at:

https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/guide/design-review-principles-and-practice

Design Council. 2017. “Purposeful design for homes and communities: design council

response to the Housing White Paper”. Available at:

https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/report/purposeful-design-homes-and-

communities.

DESIGN COUNCIL. 2018. Healthy Placemaking. Available at:


DEPARMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT NORTHERN IRELAND. 2014. Living Places: An

Urban Stewardship and Design Guide for Northern Ireland. Belfast: Department of the

Environment. Available at: https://www.planningni.gov.uk/livingplaces_-_web.pdf

DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT NORTHERN IRELAND. 2015. Strategic Planning

Policy Statement for Northern Ireland (SPPS). Belfast: Department of the Environment.

DITTMAR, H.,MAYHEW, G., HULME, J. & GOUPIL, C.. 2007. Valuing sustainable

urbanism. The Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment. Available at:

https://www.ads.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/0707vsureport_0.pdf..

https://dcfw.org/about/



https://www.gov.uk/guidance/design





https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/planning-for-the-right-homes-in-the-right-places-consultation-proposals

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/planning-for-the-right-homes-in-the-right-places-consultation-proposals

https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/resources/guide/design-review-principles-and-practice




https://www.ads.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/0707vsureport_0.pdf


FARRELL, T., FARRELL, M. & PEEL, C. 2014. The Farrell Review of architecture and the

built environment. UK Department for Culture, Media & Sport. Available at:

http://www.farrellreview.co.uk/download.

GLA. 2010. Housing Design Standards Evidence Summary. Greater London Authority.

GULLIVER, S. & TOLSON, S. 2013. Delivering Great Places to Live: 10 Propositions aimed

at transforming Placemaking in Scotland. University of Glasgow and RICS Scotland.

Available at: https://www.ads.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/1384257756Creating-and-

Delivering-Great-Places-to-Live.pdf.

HCA. 2010. HCA Proposed Core Housing Design and Sustainability Standards Consultation.

Homes and Communities Agency. Available at:

https://www.levittbernstein.co.uk/site/assets/files/1546/dwellingspacecalculator.pdf.

HCA. 2011. Housing Quality Indicators. Housing Quality Indicators. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-quality-indicators.

HCA. 2014. Urban design lessons: housing layout and neighbourhood quality. Homes and



ta/file/387979/Urban_Design_Lessons_Final.pdf.

HM GOVERNMENT. 2011. Laying the foundations: a housing strategy for England. HM

Government. Available at:


ta/file/7532/2033676.pdf.

HoC Library. 2017. New Housing Design. Debate Pack, House of Commons Library.

Available at: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CDP-2017-

0153#fullreport.

HoL NPBE. 2016. Building Better Places. House of Lords Select Committee on National

Policy for the Built Environment. Available at:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldbuilt/100/100.pdf.

JENKINS, P., MORGAN, J., SMITH, H., MCLACHLAN, F. & GARCIA-FERRARI, S. 2008.

Design at the heart of housebuilding. Scottish Government. Available at:


LGA, PAS, CABE & DESIGN COUNCIL. 2015. Design training for councillors: online self-

service learning tool. Design Council.Available at:

https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/design-training-councillo-b8b.pdf.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING, COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MHCLG). 2018.

National Planning Policy Framework. London: HM Government.

http://www.farrellreview.co.uk/download



https://www.levittbernstein.co.uk/site/assets/files/1546/dwellingspacecalculator.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-quality-indicators







https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldbuilt/100/100.pdf

https://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/202545/0054006.pdf

https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/design-training-councillo-b8b.pdf


MORRIS HARGREAVES MCINTYRE. 2006. A Literature Review of the Social, Economic

and Environmental Impact of Architecture and Design. Scottish Government. Available at:


NAO. 2005. Getting value for money from construction projects through design. National

Audit Office. Available at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118174844/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/files/getti

ng-value-for-money-from-construction-projects-through-design.pdf.

OGC. 2007. Project procurement lifecycle, the integrated process. Office of Government

Commerce. Available at:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100505185502/http:/www.ogc.gov.uk/document

s/CP0063AEGuide3.pdf.

RTPI. 2016. Poverty, Place and Inequality. Royal Town Planning Institute. Available at:

http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/1811222/poverty_place_and_inequality.pdf.

SAVILLS. 2015. Redefining Density: Making the best use of London's land to build more and

better homes. Savills and London First. Available at:

https://research.euro.savills.co.uk/pdfs/redefining-density-joint-report-with-london-first.pdf.

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT. 2003. Planning Advice Note 68: Design Statements. Scottish

Government. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/Publications/2003/08/18013/25389.

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT. 2010. Designing Streets: a policy statement for Scotland.

Scottish Government. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/Publications/2010/03/22120652/7.

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT. 2010. Planning Advice Note 83: Master planning. Available at:

https://www.gov.scot/Publications/2008/11/10114526/0.

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT. 2013. Creating Places - A policy statement on architecture and

place for Scotland. Scottish Government.

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT. 2013. Review of Scottish Public Sector Procurement in

Construction. Available at: https://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00436662.pdf.

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT. 2013. Implementation of Designing Streets policy: research

report. Available at: https://beta.gov.scot/publications/implementation-of-designing-streets-

policy-research-report/.

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT. 2014. Scottish Planning Policy. Scottish Government.

Available at: https://beta.gov.scot/publications/scottish-planning-policy/.

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT. 2014. National Planning Framework. Scottish Government.

Available at: https://beta.gov.scot/publications/national-planning-framework-3/.

SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT. 2016. Designing Streets Toolkit. Scottish Government.

Available at: https://beta.gov.scot/publications/designing-streets-toolkit/.

http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/1811222/poverty_place_and_inequality.pdf

https://research.euro.savills.co.uk/pdfs/redefining-density-joint-report-with-london-first.pdf




https://www.gov.scot/Resource/0043/00436662.pdf

https://beta.gov.scot/publications/implementation-of-designing-streets-policy-research-report/

https://beta.gov.scot/publications/implementation-of-designing-streets-policy-research-report/

https://beta.gov.scot/publications/scottish-planning-policy/

https://beta.gov.scot/publications/national-planning-framework-3/

https://beta.gov.scot/publications/designing-streets-toolkit/


SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT. 2018. “Promoting quality (website)”. Available at:


WELSH GOVERNMENT. 2011. Construction Procurement Strategy - Executive Summary

and Action Plan. Construction Procurement Strategy Steering Group. Available at:

prp.gov.wales/docs/prp/toolkit/130719constructionprocurementstrategyeng.doc.

WELSH GOVERNMENT. 2014. Delivering More Homes for Wales: report of the housing

supply task force. Cardiff: Welsh Government. Available at:


WELSH GOVERNMENT. 2016a. Technical Advice Note 12: Design. March 2016. Cardiff:

Welsh Government. Available at: https://gov.wales/docs/desh/publications/160504-technical-

advice-note-12-en.pdf

WELSH GOVERNMENT. 2016b. Planning Policy Wales Edition 8. Cardiff: Welsh

Government.

WELSH GOVERNMENT. 2017. “Design and Access Statements in Wales: Why, What and

How”. Available at: https://gov.wales/docs/desh/publications/171009design-and-access-

statements-guidance-en.pdf.

WHEELER, D., ROSS, G. & ROBERTSON, M. 2014. Research Project to Establish the Value

of Design in the Built Environment (Scotland). Scottish Government. Available at:

https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20170106211734/http://www.gov.scot/Reso

urce/0045/00456567.pdf.

12. APPENDIX 3 – Search strategy

Grey Literature Websites:

• Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (DCLG)

• https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-housing-communities-and-

local-government

• Design Council https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/

• Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE)

https://data.gov.uk/publisher/commission-for-architecture-and-the-built-environment

• Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) http://www.rtpi.org.uk

• Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) https://www.architecture.com

• Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) https://www.rics.org/uk/

• Chartered Institute of Housing (CIH) http://www.cih.org

• National House Builders Confederation (NHBC) http://www.nhbc.co.uk





https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-housing-communities-and-local-government

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/ministry-of-housing-communities-and-local-government

https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/

https://data.gov.uk/publisher/commission-for-architecture-and-the-built-environment

http://www.rtpi.org.uk/

https://www.architecture.com/

https://www.rics.org/uk/

http://www.cih.org/

http://www.nhbc.co.uk/


• Joseph Rowntree Foundation https://www.jrf.org.uk/

• Architecture & Design Scotland https://www.ads.org.uk/

• The UK Government, Scottish Government and Welsh Government publications

(www.gov.uk/government) (www.gov.scot) (www.gov.wales)

• UK Parliament publications (e.g. select committees, APPGs)

(www.publications.parliament.uk)

Reviewed Journals

• Urban Studies

• Int. Journal of Urban and Regional Research

• Environment and Planning A

• Environment and Planning B

• Environment and Planning D

• Journal of Urbanism

• Urban Design International

• Journal of Urban Design

• Cities

• CITY

• Building Research and Information

• Housing Studies

• Housing Theory and Society

• Housing and the Built Environment

• Town Planning Review

• Planning Theory and Practice

• Home Cultures

Search Protocol

Keywords: design quality / design value / value of design / value of urban design / value

added by urban design / value added by design / social value / economic value / cultural value

/ environmental value/ social value of design / economic value of design / cultural value of

design / environmental value of design / social value of urban design / economic value of

urban design / cultural value of urban design / environmental value of urban design /

development quality

Queries:

(keywords) AND (neighbourhood OR building)

https://www.jrf.org.uk/

http://www.gov.uk/government

http://www.gov.scot/

http://www.gov.wales/

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/


(keywords) AND (housing OR house OR home OR residential OR dwelling)

(keywords) AND (urban space OR built environment OR urban design)

(keywords) AND (wellbeing OR health OR poverty OR inequality OR employment OR

inclusion OR exclusion OR cohesion OR segregation OR deprivation)

(keywords) AND ("real estate" OR construction OR "real-estate" OR regeneration OR

redevelopment)

Inclusion-Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion-Exclusion Criteria

First phase inclusion/exclusion criteria (To be applied on the initial database which is compiled by title/abstract/keyword queries on the search mediums (indexes, journals, etc))

Focused, but comprehensive

The aim of this phase is narrowing down to the related sources and creating a comprehensive but focused database for the following step.

Publication date range: Since 1998

Language: English

Country / geographical focus: UK

Thematic fit/relevance : Sources directly engaging with design value In this phase, to include any source engaging with design value without excluding any scale, intervention or detail.

Second phase inclusion/exclusion criteria (To be applied on the full-texts of the sources in the main database)

Systematic and informed

The aim of this phase is to review existing evidence according to the agreed inclusion-exclusion terms.

Publication date range: Same as in the first round

Country / geographical focus: Same as in the first round


Thematic fit/relevance: Include:

1. Sources directly engaging with design value in terms of social, economic and cultural value

2. Sources engaging with design value in neighbourhood and buildings (houses, homes, flats, dwellings, residential units)

3. Sources engaging with interactions of users with urban space (incl neighbourhood and buildings)

Exclude:

1. Sources focusing on technical aspects such as solely materials, structural aspects of buildings, technology, energy, etc.

Participants characteristics: Not Applicable (no exclusion based on participant characteristics)

Research setting: Not Applicable (no exclusion based on participant characteristics)

• Methods: Not Applicable (no exclusion based on participant characteristics)

Some validity thresholds and/or relevance for exclusions and/or weighting, e.g.:

• Articles published by robust journals

• Assessment based on the methodology of the sources from grey literature - Do not exclude directly on this matter, however, rate the grey literature, then evaluate them accordingly.